How does this ‘affectance’ relate to the positive/negative or left/right spin aspects of our universe?
By “left/right spin”, I have to assume that you mean “clockwise/counter clockwise”, the universe has no “right” or “left” to it.
And asking how affectance relates to such spinning is about like asking the relation between water molecules and whirl pools. One issue doesn’t really have much to do with the other issue.
Spin occurs in the universe simply because it is impossible to be so absolutely perfectly balanced at all times such as to not spin. It would be about like trying to balance a bowling ball atop the point of a needle. And once the ball begins to fall in any direction, it takes a considerable cause for that direction to be changed. Thus once a spin begins, very little can stop it.
Although all subatomic particles have a degree of spin, the aether-like affectance of which they are made does not have any spinning quality to it. The affectance whirls around such as to cause the particles to spin merely because the average momentum on one side of the cluster of affectance (the “particle”) happened to be slightly greater in one direction than any opposition on the other side. And once such a spinning begins, there really isn’t much of anything that can stop it. And the more it spins, the more it encourages more spinning, thus once spinning, it tends to spin as fast as possible.
The phrase “spinning at the speed of light” doesn’t actually make any sense. In fact very near and inside a particle the phrase “speed of light” doesn’t actually make much sense. Affectance is made of ultra minuscule pulses/waves of electromagnetic radiation. And such pulses do have a speed, but that speed (and thus the speed of light, also made of affectance) varies depending on the ambient concentration of affectance. It is much like the speed of a person walking alone versus a person walking through a crowd, especially when all of the people are not headed in the same direction.
The speed of light “in a total vacuum” (which in itself cannot really exist) is always the same as the speed of the affectance of which the light is made. Light is merely a very large pulse/wave of affectance that is all traveling in the same direction, much like a drop of water falling to Earth versus the molecules of which that drop is made. An important distinction is that affectance has no minimum size involved in its constituency, nor particles (spinning or not).
The particles that I am referring to are only one plank length in size which I would personally considered to be the lowest common denominator of the universe. That is, within our fractal reference frame. There are obviously other fractal dimensions which may be conceived as being an ‘affectance’ type of influence on our reality. Your post appears to lack certain elements of discussion, such as reference to - fractals, infinity, dimension, push verses pull, real vacuum or black hole formation, creation of aetheric pressure, dissipation of aetheric pressure, matter formation and light transference.
Please explain how your theory accounts for -
- Light transference. 2. Matter creation. 3. Matter destruction 4. Light speed limit. 5 Gravity
I just use left and right because clockwise and counter clockwise takes more effort to type. My theory is a fundamental theory which creates a logical sequence of events which the universe must obey in order to exist. I am only observing what I see and I didn’t make it up. The formula E= MC squared is taken for granted. I have turned this formula into a practical application. ie Two particles of aether stop spinning and produce a large amount of energy. When they want to make an atom bomb, what do they do? They push particles together into a compression. This is how the sun creates energy, by pushing particles of aether together. The surface of the sun is 6,000 degrees centigrade, while its atmosphere is millions of degrees hotter.Why? Scientists still haven’t got a clue about this. This is because they deny the existence of an aether, thus, they have painted themselves into a corner. I am offering a simple solution.
The ‘affectance’ of what you are talking about must be some kind of an inter-dimensional fractal reality which affects our dimension. My theory, is that there are an infinite number of dimensions which extend inwards and outwards from our dimension. These are fractal realities. Infinity extends forever outwards and forever inwards. Dimensions separate each fractal existence. An atom is a fractal reality which has its own dimension. Thus, an atom in our dimension could be a galaxy in another fractal reality. A galactic grouping is just a single fractal in another larger fractal dimension. Thus, what appears to be a mysterious ‘affectance’ which shimmers and vibrates is just the smaller fractals which come into and out of existence due to their fractal properties and speeded up time scales.
I believe that the Plank theory is merely a modern age version of “Turtles all the way down” (Atlas holding up the Earth while standing on an elephant that is standing on a giant turtle. And then its ‘turtles all the way down from there’). There is no actual Plank length associated with physical reality, merely with trying to get QM to work out. But the universe is not quantized despite the wishes and whims of the Quantum Magi.
Well, you can start here:
Rational Metaphysics: From Void to Inertia, Mass, Momentum, Particles, and Gravity
I don’t believe in any extra dimensions either (can in fact prove them to not exist). Unlike Newtonian, Einstein, and Quantum physics, my RM:Affectance Ontology is very complete. It doesn’t need any mystical or magical (inexplicable) anything.
What about fractals? Do you even know what a fractal is?
Well, you have been a busy little beaver, but are you constructing something or are you obstructing something? Your theory doesn’t seem to achieve anything useful that I can see. It just seems to state that the universe is a non-solid wishy washy place that comes and goes when it pleases. Where is the usefulness? Where is the structure? Where is the relationship to reality?
So, where does the sun get its energy from? Please explain in terms of affectance.
Fractals only physically exist on a macroscopic scale. Although they might intrigue the imagination, they are not an explanation, nor even description, of physical reality. From where would the fundamental Plank sized fractals come? Why those particular shapes and not others? Who’s making that decision? How does motion fit into a fractal ontology (Do you even know what an ontology is?).
The same was said of Science (“Natural Philosophy”) for over 1000 years. Of what ridiculous use were computers, 70 years ago? Until one looks into the details and exercises a little inventiveness, nothing is what it seems whether seeming to look useful or useless.
RM:AO explains all of the mysteries that Science cannot currently explain while maintaining a coherent understanding of all that it currently observes (such as why gravity does what it does and why their equations come so close to being accurate. Or why charged particles attract and repel and how that can be affected). RM:AO even explains why the universe exists at all.
RM:AO gives the real picture of what is necessary to create things like actual anti-gravity, extremely powerful yet small weapons, truly impervious materials, and so on. And all from an understanding of the ultra sub-atomic noise that makes up the universe (the Affectance).
Structure begins to take place with relative spheres known as sub-atomic particles. There is no structure of a mechanical nature any smaller. The spheres form due to a fully explainable interaction within a field of affectance (similar to the attractor effect). Those spheres (just as real science teaches) make up the atoms that make up the molecules that have valence which allows for much, much larger structures to take shape. RM:AO explains every tiny detail (and even with mathematical precision when necessary).
And in a fractal sort of way, the exact same fundamental principles of affectance that apply with extreme precision to physics, also apply to every field of science: psychology, sociology, economics, chemistry, basket weaving,… RM:AO is not merely a “Unified Field Theory”, UFT, but also a “Grand Unified Theory”, GUT. And tested through emulation.
The Sun gives energy, it doesn’t get energy (much). Although I am not an astro-historian, I suspect that all stars acquired their energy from the collision of black holes (extremely, ultra large particles), assuming that they actually exist (ref: The Eternal Universe – An Ocean of Motion).
What you call “mass” is merely highly concentrated affectance. When there are a great many particles packed together into a very large object such as a star or black hole, the affectance density gets extreme in that region of space. Sub-atomic particles both form and distribute from such regions. And such regions form due to the attractor effect, more commonly known as gravity = mass aggregation (as explained in the prior link).
And now since so very much exacting and provable detail has already been worked out (and far more than what you have seen), I have to ask you a question:
Are you constructing or obstructing?
So, what is your understanding of infinity? Do you think that the universe has limits and barriers? Does the universe only exist as far as our vision and instrumentation allows? Is there anything which exists beyond the senses and aid of instrumentation?
What is this mysterious attraction force that you speak of? As far as I am concerned attraction is just a deception. Nature can only push, it can’t pull. Pulling can only be achieved by intelligent life forms on a small scale by using stored vacuums.
-
How do you explain that the surface of the sun is 6,000 degrees centigrade while its atmosphere is millions of degrees hotter?
-
What force keeps these very large objects together? Why don’t they just dissipate into a average evenness?
-
What causes the universe into an endless cycle of creation and destruction? ie - a game of paper-scissors-rock
-
Why doesn’t the universe ever resolve itself into nothingness?
I have zero doubt that the universe is endless, “infinite”, in both time and space.
Certainly. When hasn’t there been?
The term “attractor” is a misnomer (even in mathematics). There is nothing actually being attracted (nor pushed), but rather temporarily trapped. Every “attractor system” is really an “entrapment system”. Affectance slows affectance, light slows light, and thus causes a temporary “trap” until the affectance/light can eventually escape.
On the ultra minuscule scale, there is no pushing or pulling taking place. On the macroscopic scale, one can merely assume a pushing or pulling without worry because the end effect is as though there really was a pushing or pulling (thus Newton’s laws worked pretty close).
Particles are always reconstituting themselves. They do so a little more to the “right or left” depending on the ambient conditions, thus giving the impression that they are being pulled or pushed. In reality whatever is to their right or left is merely altering the ambient affectance density of the particle. Every particle always migrates toward the higher affectance density unless there is a “charge” related issue (“PtA”), which has a stronger migration priority.
First, not being an astronomer, I don’t know that such is true. It does sound a bit fishy. But if it was true, I am pretty certain that I would end up explaining it pretty much in the same way that current astrophysicists would. Affectance ontology is not a total replacement for all physics. It merely explains what wasn’t explainable by there other ontologies (Newton, Einstein, and Quantum) while not forsaking the truths within those ontologies.
RM:AO would explain why they observe such a thing, not necessarily why it is true. Observations and their consequential rationalizations are often not the reality. If they are observing such a difference, I would have to see exactly what they are doing such as to give them that impression.
The point to this thread is that in reality, there are no “forces” at all. Everything that happens is a consequence of affectance density variations along with the relative level of PtA (Potential-to-Affect - similar to the electric potential or charge). Sub-atomic particles and photons migrate in accord to affectance density and PtA. And if a large highly dense region of space is close by (such as the Earth itself), the surrounding ambience will have a relatively high affectance density, commonly known as a “gravity field”. That higher affectance density will cause any other highly dense concentrations (mass objects) to migrate into the more dense field and thus toward the greatly dense object (Earth).
That is why mass objects (“highly dense affectance regions”) aggregate. And the same is true concerning any and all radiant EMR (ElectroMagnetic Radiation - “light”). Every little bit of affectance traveling by a dense region of space (an object or dark matter region) will curve toward the more dense region. Light (EMR) bends toward highly dense regions (material objects).
What that means is that the highly dense regions (particles or objects) are always being reconstituted with new ultra minuscule EMR pulses (Affectance). Affectance is always leaving every particle just as more is arriving. From a higher scale, it would appear as nothing changing other than the particle’s willingness to very rapidly alter its position, sometimes with no visible cause (affectance is not visible unless highly concentrated = “mass”).
Thus both particles and larger material objects maintain themselves and are anentropic because they are “entrapment systems” with respect to affectance, they aggregate more of whatever they lose, maintaining a balance and size. They achieve this aggregation merely by slowing any affectance that happens to be passing, thus maintaining their higher density (the same way that a bank increases its stockpile/reserve by delaying transfers).
As explained prior, it is all merely a matter of migrating concentrations. The concentrations form because affectance slows affectance, thus creating highly, maximum density small regions, “particles”, “clusters”, or “traffic jams” of otherwise random affectance . And those particles cause more highly dense ambience surrounding them, thus “attracting” (causing a migration) of other particles. Larger regions build up over eons of time and eventually form “black-holes” with such extremely high density that no particle can avoid migrating into it, adding to its huge aggregation.
But such black holes cannot avoid each other forever and thus eventually, very, very slowly begin to migrate toward each other. Over an extreme amount of time, some begin to collide at extreme velocities. When that happens, they either spin into being one very large rapidly spinning black hole or they explode with enough affectance in the form of mass and light to create many stars and planets. Those new stars then fly away only to eventually get caught up into another black hole far away. And thus the “cycle” (not really a true cycle but rather a fluxing) goes on and on as the affectance builds up, explodes, and builds up again in a different place just to eventually explode again. Such exploding is somewhat randomly dispersed through the entire universe, taking eons to shift around and does so endlessly.
Every PIXEL of light in this picture is a GALAXY (not merely a star):
Explained above. And absolute nothingness is absolutely impossible (ref: The Absolute Impossibility of Nothingness)
fractaluniverse.eclipse.co.u … ersion.pdf
Where does that shape come from? If you turn a triangle at 180 degrees you get a star. Keep turning the star until you get a circle. The universe is built around the number 3 which comes from the 3 states of aether - left spin, right spin and no spin. An electron is a fractal of an atom, which is a fractal of a moon, which is a fractal of a planet, which is a fractal of a sun, which is a fractal of a solar system, which is a fractal of a galaxy, which is a fractal of a super cluster etc etc to infinity, in both directions, both inwards and outwards. The universe is an endless fractal reality which has dimensional nodal points intervals which follow predictable mathematical models. Galaxies give birth to new galaxies at a 90 degree angle in both north pole and south pole regions at an average distance of 300 million light years.
Attractor is merely a true vacuum which is created by the tear or ripping of the aether matrix due to galactic spin. Note - The Tunguska event was an electromagnetic ejection similar to the suns. The trees were pushed over in a vortex pattern which is not possible in a meteorite strike.
What causes this entrapment? Is it a black hole attractor? Of course it is, what else? The universe is just a fractal replication of the easily visible galactic model on all scales both small and large. The electric nature of the universe can be explained by converting electrical energy into spin energy which is more accessible and understandable. By using spin to replace electrical energy we can visualize electrical energy for more practical applications. Positive and negative charge terminology is far too irresolute to be of any useful value. By using left and right spin, the universe can become a more rational place which has mechanically viable solutions. It is clear by the plasma inflow at the suns north and south poles that the sun gets its fuel from the aether influx. The neutrino out-flux of the sun doesn’t match the neutrino out-flux that would be expected of a nuclear reactor.
Infinitely place and shift squares centered at the same point and you will get a circle. So the universe is made of squares? Infinitely place and shift varied length lines side by side and you can make any shape you want. So the universe is made of lines?
It is easy and common to imagine fractals in many places, such as the Koch snowflake. But what about all of the places they do not seem to exist? What do triangles have to do with the shape of the Moon, it’s orbit, an electron, its orbit, a grain of sand, or a sand dune? A triangle is a pretty uncommon natural shape.
Not really. But this isn’t the thread to debate the Fractal Universe theory.
You had mentioned the existence of pushing forces. I would like to hear more about that theory.
…the three states of affectance: positive, negative, and neutral relative to the ambient. 
A seemingly wild, unsupportable speculation.
You obviously haven’t read the link that I posted which fully explains the concept. My description was only a brief summary of an idea but without pictures its not clear.
This is the crux of the issue and you say its not relevant to the topic? That’s a big cop-out.
The universe can only do a limited number of actions or non-actions. These are - 1. Explosion. 2. Implosion, 3. Spin clockwise 4. Spin anti-clockwise 5. Not spin (waves would be regarded as explosions)
These actions are carried out in endless fractal dimensions which are inwards and outwards from our dimension. This is what creates complication and unpredictability or chaos mathematics theory and maybe even affectance if you push your luck a little.
Unfortunately, its the only viable explanation of how a vacuum attractor could exist in the first place. Unless, the non-spinning ethons create a vacuum by the action of not spinning which is an alternative solution. Note - Two spinning balls will be attracted to one another without the use of gravity or magnetism.
We are not even close to defining what is cosmologically fact.
So, the universe can only rotate on a single axis? It cannot change its direction of spin, or axis of spin? It can only spin on its x axis, but not y or z?
Also, the universe cannot move objects, say, left or right, or up or down?
A spinning object can be pushed, thus combining 2 actions in 3 dimensions of space.
More unsupported assertions.
In philosophy, it is more important as to WHY something is true than whether it is true. One can state an assertion without any supporting reasoning to merely get the discussion started or merely as a passing comment, but in order to form believability, one must provide a reason for believing it (else it is merely a religious dogmatic notion).
Certainly not true.
Oh. I didn’t realize that was the force to which you were referring (gravity). As I understand it, that is an ancient idea. So okay, lets talk about the theory that gravity is a pushing force.
1) Formally I would disprove the notion that gravity is caused by pushing in the same way that I have proven it to not be pulling. That was to prove what necessarily must be true and see that there is no actual pushing or pulling involved (a long story). But the pushing theory would seem to be even more implausible than the pulling anyway.
2) When an object is larger, with more total mass, a second object is notably proportionally affected more. That intuitively makes sense merely because from more, one would expect to get more. But the proposal that space is pushing seems odd because even with a greater massive object, the space surrounding it is the same (not counting the tiny amount missing due to the greater size of the object itself). So why would the same amount of space surrounding a large mass push harder on an object than it was pushing when the mass was smaller?
If you want to disagree with something you have to state why you disagree with it. Just saying something is unsupported, is in itself an unsupported contradiction.
If you can think of any other actions that are not listed above please let me know what they are.
Note - I am the initiator of this concept, so who am I to refer to other than myself?
It is up to you to disprove it.
- Well, if you can prove what I am saying is false, then you can have the glory of winning the debate.
- Nothing in this world is certain.
- My theories are based on the observations of nature. Thus, if my theories are false, then nature is false also.
So, then, can you explain how a vacuum attractor comes into existence?
- There are more black hole attractors in a larger object which has exponential characteristics of attraction. or 2. The matter of the planet has displaced the aether which causes a stretching tension because the aether matrix has elastic jelly like properties. =D>
Not quite the way it works.
The burden of proof is upon the one desiring a belief. If I want you to believe that I have provided a UFT, it is up to me to provide proof that I have. It is not up to you to prove that I haven’t. Of course, when I say “prove”, I really mean “convince” because everyone these days uses their own standard for proof, which generally includes the priority of wanting to believe.
You stated that the universe can only do 4 actions, leaving 5 possible states. I don’t even understand what the “universe doing” something means. Thus I don’t have any reason to believe what you said. I am not saying that it isn’t true, just that I do not see any reasoning, because I don’t understand what the hell it even meant.
Perhaps for you, but certainly not for me.
It appears that your theories are based upon speculations from observations (“maybe it is like this…”).
I can explain gravity, why masses merge. A “vacuum attractor” is not what I would call it.
This is an emulation (not simulation) of an Affectance “attractor” (auto-aggregation) as a sub-atomic part forms from random affectance:
It functions merely by higher density affectance slowing the random affectance (your “aether”) and thus causing a “traffic jam” that becomes stable at a specific size. It was initiated merely by placing a “seed” of high density affectance in the center of the cubic metaspace region (in front of the “camera”). Although I couldn’t run the emulation long enough to display it, that particle doesn’t grow any more than what is shown at the end of the anime.
So you are saying that a 10 kg mass has more “black-hole attractors” than a 1 kg mass?
Please explain “black-hole attractor”. The wording seems to be unique.
So now you are proposing a stretchable “fabric of space” ontological element (one of the fantasies of relativity)?
Why would aether have a fabric nature to it?
“universe doing something” means 1. actions 2. basic movements
If you have provided a UFT( Unified Field Theory), then it is a very vague one. What is your common denominator that unites gravity, matter and light? My theory uses spin to unite these 3 disparate phenomenon. Just because you have access to some nifty technology doesn’t necessarily mean you know anything special. All those nincompoops who operate the Hadron Collider don’t have a clue about how the universe works because their basic premise is wrong. They assume that the atom is made of hundreds of different particles which they are trying to smash and see all the particles in isolation. Unfortunately, all they are seeing is the same particle which is doing different things. My theory is more logical because the universe wouldn’t create hundreds of sub-atomic particles when only one particle can do the job far more efficiently. Nature is basically very simple and always takes the easy road and never creates complication when simplification is available. It is just a matter of common sense which is not very common as Mark Twain often said.
My theories are based on common sense and are a synthesis of previous ideas from people like Nikola Tesla, Bill Gaede and Robert Distinti who are all qualified engineers with knowledge of physics. And because the universe is electrical in nature, I would trust an electrical engineer more than I would a physicists with no training in electrical engineering.
I am not sure what tools or equipment you used to derive this animation. Please explain what tools or equipment were used. Did you use a Hadron Collider?
Uranium weighs nearly twice as much as lead. This is because uranium has more black hole attractors which cause gravity or weight to occur. Thus, its the push of aether on a mass that creates or determines its weight. Uranium is an unstable element because it has too many electrons and protons. It has reached the end of stable element creation and is liable to disintegration. Essentially, its the number of neutrons that determines an elements weight. Neutrons are no spin ethons or black hole attractors which the protons and electrons are falling into continuously forever. Thus, we have the fractal universe. (a miniature galaxy)
[/quote]
[/quote]
I am only observing what I see. When I look at a galaxy, I see that the spin is causing matter creation. Now, how could spin cause matter creation? The galactic spin creates holes in the aether matrix fabric which are black hole attractors. The ethons rotate around (fall into) these black hole attractors. Some ethons don’t fall in and rotate around forever in orbits which we call matter. =D>
I can think of many other “basic movements” like moving laterally, circling, spiraling, bouncing, oscillating, and so on.
I haven’t explained it yet. I was more interested in trying to understand yours first.
Affectance. All fields are merely the aberrant effects of the one field called “Affectance”; electric, magnetic, gravitational, and any others that anyone would like to specify. And there really isn’t any option in the matter, although as I said, I haven’t explained it to You yet (despite giving you a few links - which you didn’t read much of).
I was an EEngr too. So do you trust me?
…I doubt it.
I emulated a Collider. It cost me far less than CERN’s $10 billion search for a non-existent particle.
This thread explains a little of the history: RM: Equation of Space.
It certainly seems that you are doing much more than merely observing. The magician’s audience “merely observes” as he pulls a rabbit out of a hat. People were merely observing when they were certain that the Earth was flat.
The only thing that you can observe (with a lot of presumed help) concerning galaxies is that they seem to have a spiral about them. Everything else is speculation as to why. I can think of reasons why that do not require the complexity of “vacuum attractors”.
Again, it seems that you are merely speculating that "maybe it is like this… four basic motions … black-hole attractors … vacuum attractors … stretched fabric of space … aether … spinning ethons …"
Maybe it isn’t like that.
All the motions and actions that you have listed are consequential or secondary motions. They are the result of two primary actions coming together. What I am talking about is basic or primary actions, which may be the cause of thousands of secondary motions or actions.
I appears that you are similar to those quantum computer makers who are forever in the process of making one by but never seem to arrive at a solution. You have been on this website for a long time now. If you haven’t formulated a UFT by now, you probably never will. Anyway, I have already worked out how the universe works, so I guest all you can get is second prize now. 
Affectance is your answer? Where can I buy some? Really, I think you are in the illusion business. I have seen and delt many different con-artists over the years, so I know all the tricks and diversions that they get up to. But don’t worry, I wont give your game away!
I emulated a Collider. It cost me far less than CERN’s $10 billion search for a non-existent particle.
This thread explains a little of the history: RM: Equation of Space.
[/quote]
Your affectance theory reads like the communist manifesto in disguise. Don’t worry I wont tell anybody about your communistic aspirations.
“Today’s speculation is tomorrows standard text”. Quote from Platospuppy. =D>