Last modified on 18 February 2011, at 22:34

Quantum Nanotechnology/The IF Factor

The IF FactorEdit

An unknown being the uncertain nature of something questionable, begins the wheels of thought to turn. Often deductive reasoning inquires into the physical nature of the subject at hand. Such as an ordinary cedar block, what is it, what does it do? What the thing consists of, what are it's measurements?

Once certain facts accumulate together through calculus, logic, and accumulative research the weight, size, chemistry, color and physical characteristics a final report is drawn up meticulously depicting it for a goal. The paper is then examined under various authorities where conclusions determine the fate of the author's work. These conclusions lead to an educated interpretation of it's physical nature.

The interpretation then goes through the ultimate test under scientific scrutiny to ascertain proof of the author's claims by experimental verification under laboratory conditions. If the results match the theory's claim - it is correct going on to additional ideas to further the cause of the paper and if not, then the author of the theory needs to rework it or it become completely invalid.

When one takes into consideration that all results obtainable from “if - then” propositions, like the combinations to permutations involving probable relations - there can only be so many results, (and thereby limits) whereby one out of them all corresponds to the correct solution.

And at some future point must repeat, (like the two die) because they are bound to degrees of freedom through energy in debt to gravity. Commonly this is known as a split decision, that meaning that given any two outcomes both cannot result together, either one or the other can be the result. Similar to that of two possible choices between 0 or 1. It is not unite, nor involves simultaneity - and does not count in this, while or * fractures.

Likewise, one or the another answer or choice can be taken to determine correct choices of actions throughout all physical laws, which accordingly suggests that everything we do depends on one choice or another that further indicates that space time is fractionated by choices made through energy in debt to Pe Where Pe is required to make the choice by changes in direction. And like the combinations and permutations of two die the outcomes are limited (by positions) to the number of combinations and permutations available - of which by df at some future point MUST repeat. Breaking this information down indicates that the df in space time are the total combinations and permutations of the system.

*(see: Review of the High-Low).

If what one seeks to control in space - time were physical, it must ultimately consist of energy, and energy is principally composed of physical information with respect to it's occupancy in space-time.

We can make the connection between the two where space-time possesses the properties of automation (non-mechanistic) while energy retains the properties of actualizing manually by an external source we know as force. It is the impression of violating causality that we get which makes us assume that it can go beyond the dimensional, when in fact gravity is behind it.

Energy is the only force ending in nullification, finalizing at zero when intervention is withdrawn from the transfer of energy to a body of mass. Force as it is currently defined, is the manual intervention of energy manifestation to an applied object.


*Gravity is the automatic degrees of freedom of automated space-time which delimit manually based, external energy. This begins positionally, where change-in direction corresponds to potential energy. A single position ( of ) space may be defined as A multi - directional degree of freedom constraining the influence of manually based energies from/to automated space-time, giving rise to the possibility of partial and semi-automated energy forms.

*Energy formulations that can establish are manifest through the manual intervention of one or more external forces between or by any two positions (of) space-(time) accountable for a single possibility.


*Time is dimensional; as there are many outcomes in THE space-time, there are also outcomes in A space-time, with perhaps more definitions that are unknown The product of dimensional travel is applicable only when energy and mas are automated, as space-time is automatic. Whereas negative energy densities cannot come about except through time travel. Energy is a value-based measurement, calculated by displacement across space over time. Liberate energy from manual intervention to one of automation and you free the body from degrees of freedom.

*The manual incitement and/or accumulation of energy transfer with respect to a line-segment is one which repetitiousness is put in to produce the put out, originating from the external that when input establishes a displacement. Renewal of the energy input is required in equal, lesser or more quantity in order for the output to prevent the force of gravity to act upon the body to bringing it back to zero through energy in debt to gravity through potential energy.

For accumulation of force producing an accumulation of energy motion, a repetitive input of increasing force must be fed to the body to accumulate more energy and acquire changing velocities.

Where:


\begin{align}
 f &= \mathrm E = f\\
 \Delta f = a &= \Delta \mathrm v = a = \Delta \mathrm E = \Delta f \ldots
\end{align}

This is normal non-relativistic Cause and Effect under standard experimentation, except that with large inputs resulting in relativistic situations. The only thing "new" about the input-to-output scheme is that where input is open there has been a change in force to produce a change-in energy or velocity more diverse timitically, than it was previously.

It is the same energy but with more or less "power" by reason of input. Energy and potential energy are one and the same thing. That one originates from the other makes no difference, they are considered as one with the only difference being that whenever one interchanges into the other one is in debt to the other by gravity and un-isolatable either.

Yet with the light ring - independent form the source - whose circumference is fixed at a finite distance, mass-less energy avoids loss in energy by renewal of energy.

Dependent upon the circumference the finite distance couples energy renewal at the point on the radius. The oddity here is that although this is true, it is that the energy's leaving and arriving transpire with 99% of the same interval when measured by a point on the radius. That is that it almost simultaneous but cannot do so owing to the fact that no real emergence to another time, THE past or THE future is truly taking place except by arrival back to the present or THE now.

For the researcher and the layman it may seem difficult to comprehend how this can be since causality is being violated. Yet it is imperative to understand that such a ring of laser light can in no sense disappear from one time frame, and then reappear at some earlier or later date. This is because where there is time travel, the path the energy takes merely moves through time and never emerges into that time.

Therefore it altogether remains in current time. This is because it is using the past and the future to return or re-return back to the present. The Measure is at the point on the radius; constantly changing direction in 1 direction.

This change-in direction - in 1 direction - corresponds to how gravitation dictates these degrees of freedom constraining us via potential energy in debt to gravity with the incorporation of energy.

df example

However, when constantly changing direction - in 1 direction is transpiring – repetitively, (and depending on the distance) the time for potential energy to become established becomes less.

df at circumference

Would this therefore indicate that position is in fact time? Does the above statement therefore apply to the following identity equation?

P=T \,

If we assume this to be true then it would contradict the previous concept of two or more positions creating a single possibility, but then again energy manifests positions. So:


Would the following hypothetical equation then apply?: (Hypothetic Equation)

\frac{P_1}{P_2}=T?

If a single position were assumed as time it would in turn indicate that the given ability of energy to choose direction by position would give possibility and that would mean that 2 positions do not give 1 possibility, which when quantified makes absolutely no sense as to what position consists of other than that it is established through energy in debt to potential energy. But then considering that with 2 positions giving 1 possibility, does the question still remain a mystery?

Much less where is at?

Interestingly enough this is a practical question. If as an interested reader of this book are considering just what position is, one should know that position is the direct result of the manual establishment of energy in debt to potential energy.

And so

P \neq T

This is the equivalent of saying that kinetic energy and potential energy are opposites, therefore being opposites the differential between the two debts is what manifests gravity.

But wait a minute! Did we not just identify that gravity is from without and not related to energy? Keep in mind that this circumstance transpires only when that energy is manually based and externally operated, and not when energy is automatic.

This is the equivalent of saying that kinetic energy and potential energy are opposites, therefore being opposites the differential between the two debts is what manifests gravity.

But wait a minute! Did we not just identify that gravity is from without and not related to energy? Keep in mind that this circumstance transpires only when that energy is manually based and externally operated, and not when energy is automatic.

In theory when energy is manifesting the two positions act to regulate df or to determine what is possible from what is not, most likely whenever a change-in direction is prearranged to occur for energy, chosen by manual input; and while input constrains to probabilistic repeats by gravity. Similar to the way in which a person goes in and out a doorway.

The constraint also prohibits change-in direction while propagating in line-segments.

We therefore have it for automated space-time, that one position is not truly separate from any other position, that when energy is present, literally p1 to pN are one, and hence simultaneity or communication thereby…to manifest potential for possibility. Similar but not identical to - to the way in which dolphins use ultrasound.

This would tend to clarify the logic involved in interpreting what position alone is, for how can two positions be separate to create space between them? Many experiments in Quantum dynamics appear to point to this indication, in the main energy corresponding to non-locality.

Such as those that began with the ever famous Einstein-Poldolsky-Rosen (EPR) thought experiment, (1939) the Alan Aspect group (At that time in Paris) reversing the spin of a particle finding that another particle six miles away communicated and reversed it's spin also.

From EPR then came the now famous teleportation of light Quanta at IBM. The list continues as they all seem to be touching the tip of the iceberg pertaining to energy, and "talking" with space-time. According to Peter Lynds: There is not a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical at which the relative position of a body in relative motion or a specific physical magnitude would theoretically be precisely determined.


Reality or our external environment of space-(time) by definition does not appear to have a static basis. The reason for this is simple, and it is not a hard concept to grasp. In the absence of energy a static instant cannot be measured, because the measurement we seek to define is forged out of energy in relationship to space-time.

Whereby measurement (As opposed to a cipher) could answer our questions as to it's comprehension. How is it automatic, malleable applicable to use for dimensional and interstellar travel?( Physical Review Letters Vol. 70 March 1993 )

Again 2 positions account for 1 possibility, or possible directions. These are equal and opposite according to Euclidean Geometries where line-segments are basic to understanding geometry. But contrariwise unequal and inverse according to the spaces apart in distance-direction corresponding to the High-Low representing a line-segment representing space-time, so what is going on here?

In this respect position along with energy possesses properties of dualisms or a dual nature. Thus zero being position accounts for the possible direction outcome taken in a line-segment via choice corresponding to changes in E in debt to Pe as it is necessitated to change position. While simultaneously these positions constituting the two possible outcomes in opposite directions

(The line-segment) of a line-segment, distance is estimate of two ( with more ) dual positions constituting fractures constituting the whole by the percent. It is not meant here to steer clear from our understanding of classical physics but to raise some questions in light of my own insights.

When two or more dimensions (distance-directions) come into play, cross-sectioning the original in a Cartesian coordinate system these positions are where energy must absolutely originate. Still the more, static, timitically when we factor in Peter Lynds hypothesis.

Provided that conservation of energy is by change-in direction, constantly changing direction about a specific D is by curl (Q), or δ, then it stands to reason that change-in direction (Δd) avoids df to a minor extent.