Computational Methodology


  pg 6  

I have been motivated to make this analysis from foundational logic derived in computer software which depicts evolutionary modeling of Newtonian-Planck gravity. These models use Newtonian gravity in conjunction with quantum time, thereby solving the many-body-problem for Newtonian gravity. I know of nobody else that has done this.

My first gravity simulators were published online in 2008. In these models, gravity propagates to any distance in one quanta of time for any number of bodies without contradiction. This algorithm rests on the notion that quantum gravity is defined intrinsically by quantum time; so gravity is not propagated in zero time, but in the smallest possible unit of time. As far as I can tell Newtonian-Planck gravity yields the only mathematical explanation for the gravity assist (slingshot or whiplash affect). Of course the gravity assist has been measured, but that is not the same as the reason for it.

Nowhere have I yet encountered any viable attempt to calculate or compute a system for placing three or more bodies in a Relativistic paradigm. All such attempts yield the blatant contradictions that should by now be self-evident to the reader. Thus, I find it methodologically untenable that logical proofs for the Theories of Relativity can be claimed unless one has first solved the many-body-problem for Newtonian gravity within the rigid mathematical structure of an evolutionary computer programming language. After all, 3-body-Newtonian-Planck gravity yields a logical algorithm; whereas attempts at 3-body-Relativity, from an evolutionary computational perspective, simply do not. They can not.

Such computational software necessarily evolves graphics that are demonstratively superior to mere numerical or formulaic answers. These processes go beyond static graphs as well, as they are graphically dynamic. Moreover they are very easy to demonstrate to any observer. There are a number of these gravity-simulator software applications freely available to download on my website.

These applications show the evolutionary structures for numerous bodies in solar systems and galaxies. This includes proof that our solar system was once a binary star system, and that the planets are the debris of the Sun’s companion which went nova at least 10 billion years ago. The inner planets at one point were moons of Jupiter. Jupiter is the core that remains of the Sun’s binary companion star, which split up with excessive spin. This explains the existence of the ecliptic plane, and why orbital rotation in the solar system is uniform in direction as well as mostly uniform for planetary axes. It also explains the rings of Saturn and the equatorial wall on Saturn’s moon, Iapetus. I had computed that the Earth’s Moon would be departing from the Earth at a miniscule rate due to the gravity of the Sun, before I had heard that this measurement had actually been observed.

A solar system that formed without spin as a fundamental structure would more easily yield planets orbiting in opposing directions, and most easily yield orbits perpendicular to each other. This is because such non-uniform orbits would interfere with one another less than uniform orbits would – and this would make the non-uniform orbits vastly more likely to persist. A solar system with an ecliptic plane and all the planets orbiting in the same uniform direction would be the least likely structure to form without spin as a force. This answer was forthcoming from the models before I even tried to compute Relativity…

In addition, spiral galaxies must be binary systems or white holes. Each of the pair in this binary system emits stars from its equator due to excessive spin. This spiral binary structure explains why spiral galaxies typically have two arms. This also solves the problem of rotational curves of spiral galaxies (which are essentially empty at the center). Celestial bodies (stars and galaxies) can only form as binaries in such abundance because a single body spun apart to form the binary. The odds of a binary pair forming due to gravity and random starting positions are so unlikely that there would only be a few of such binary pairs in each galaxy.

Dark Matter is the remains of stars that spun outwards from the binary white holes at the center of each spiral galaxy. These outer stars are dark because they no longer emit light due to old age. These systems of dark matter stars (Dead Stars) are simply solar systems where the central body is some un-shining body like Jupiter. Typically such bodies are termed ‘brown dwarfs’.

Some of dark matter may be something similar to the black-holes described by Relativity, but the theoretical foundation for black-holes is at this point a total mess of contradictions. I will thus only get back to correcting the theory on black-holes in Chapter 30. I shall have to avoid the term ‘black-hole’ as the connotations to Relativity are too severe. But it is still thoroughly vital to understand what happens to a body of mass when it exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit. A better term for a body that is massive enough to collapse under its own gravity would be a Chandrasekhar-star, or C-star. The word ‘Black-hole’ only has relevance historically as belonging to a theoretical paradigm which has been disproved.

Dark Energy is spin and can only be a fundamental force which was prevalent from the start of the universe. The reason why the universe is uniform – is that spin as a force separated the singularity at the very beginning. There was no ‘big bang’, instead a very smooth ‘big unwind’. Spin as the fifth fundamental force would have had to have overpowered gravity at the beginning. But it seems that spin could have subsequently tapered off as the universe has expanded.

The entire universe still spins, and this I have called the ‘Cosmic Coriolus’ which is the source of why it is that an object starts to spin as it approaches the velocity of light. This is similar to how Earthly weather systems like hurricanes start to spin with increased rotational velocity as their linear velocity increases. But instead of a 3-d planet; the entire universe is a 4-d rotating sphere. Cosmic Coriolus would fit into the same ontological place that Einstein figured his Cosmological Constant should be (in opposition to gravity). Even if his answers were mostly wrong, his questions were utterly exquisite.

Thus space is curved extra-dimensionally, but not due to mass and gravity. The curvature of space is the curve of a 4-d rotating expanding sphere. By 4-d, I mean four dimensions of space. Time is not the fourth dimension. It is something else entirely.

All of this (and much more) leads me to make this computational analysis of gravitational waves and General Relativity from the foundational basis of a functional multi-body Newtonian-Planck paradigm with absolute clarity of purpose.

I am hoping that the reader has made a close study of the Time Dilation Conundrum whereby it was clearly shown that time dilation in the Special Theory of Relativity is utterly impossible in a logical universe. That same computational method has been applied here. Non-computer programming theorists such as Einstein were able to believe that Relativity was a logical paradigm because their various formulae all stood alone. Only when we place them into a single algorithm, do we see that the pieces of the puzzle just do not fit together. Let me try and explain what it takes to construct these models using normal language.

If we have 10 principles which must work in the same computational model, we have to be utterly certain of the precise logical structure of all 100 interactions between these principles. Every principle must interact with every principle in all instances without violating the integrity of any other principle. Each principle must also have an exactly defined relationship with itself.

Likewise, if I have 10 physical bodies interacting in the algorithm, this requires 100 relationships between the bodies for each principle. Not only must each principle not contradict itself, but they must not contradict each other within the same body – and – as regards all the other bodies and all their potential interactions.

When functioning, this software will then compute 10 000 separate functional relationships, each of which often require quite a number of arithmetical and trigonometrical formulae as well. I cannot at any point make any assumptions or take for granted any mathematical relationships between any of the 10 000 relevant processes. Every relationship must be spelt out in computer code to the tiniest detail, or the computer program will crash. But before the computer crashes, it becomes fairly obvious that it will crash if one has spent a significant amount of time simply thinking about how all the details must fit together.

In this article I have just expressed the logical consequences of how that computer code functions in ordinary language for the benefit of theoretical physics and philosophy of science. Luckily the only part I do not have to worry about is the arithmetic; which the computer executes perfectly to the 14th decimal point; which constitutes an error margin of 1mm per light year. That is quite a luxury which Einstein did not have over a century ago.

In creating such a computer model, the programming language will simply not allow me to make an algorithm which is self-contradictory or it will generate a critical error; whereas pencil-and-paper math can happily be riddled with logical contradictions; and nobody be the wiser. This process was applied to Newtonian gravity in my earlier models and it lead to the conclusion that time must exist in quantum jumps as Planck had concluded (and indeed Zeno as well).

Those models operate perfectly without any contradictions. The principle is flawless, the only drawbacks being that no computer can ever get remotely close to operating at quantum time itself (5 x 10^-44s or
seconds per iteration). And, the more bodies in the model, the slower its evolution.

So because the computer does have a margin of error due to being exponentially slower than quantum time, it could be considered that there is an exponentially high margin of error. But interestingly, I can make the margin of error worse – and when I do so, there is no fundamental change to the results. Even if I increase the margin of error by many thousands of times I get the same results. So there is no strong inductive reason to suspect that the results will improve by improving the margin of error! Of course no model can ever be entirely accurate. But at least it can be non-contradictory. Internal logical consistency may not seem to be a very high aim, but it is a far more difficult goal to achieve than one at first thinks, given a century of Relativists.

And then one day I decided to take an afternoon and simply tack the Relativity formulae onto the Newtonian-Planck models. At this point I had no idea that three and a half years later I would be obsessively and thoroughly disclaiming the most popular idea the modern world has known.

But it should all have been obvious without the algorithms. It should be easy to see that the alleged fluctuations in Relativistic time are totally inconsistent with the concept of time as an indivisible quantum unit. Zeno would never have accepted relativity. So why did Planck not disavow Relativity? That will be answered in the next section.

  pg 6  


This is an extract summary
The full Chapter 28 is here:





Top of Page