Yes, this is good.
I would like to see this sort of emulation in four dimensions, not just the three here (two spatial + one time). Can you create a graphic to emulate what is going on in the four-dimensional (three spatial + one time) space?
Well, that was the purpose of Jacquelin who was aborted in the third trimester due to malnutrition that led to heart failure. I can handle brain surgery, but not blindfolded using sharp sticks and blunt stones (MSBS). I had intended to use the actual 3D emulation to produce graphic 2D displays like that one through direct measurements of the emulation.
The 3D emulating of the affectance field gets very complex. A part of the complexity comes from the fact that common mathematics was developed around the ontology of contemporary physics. In the emulation above, contemporary physics would simply presume that the originating sine wave remains as a sine wave and merely shrinks by an amount to be experimentally measured. Applying relatively simple math models makes the simulation easy. But that is a typical kind of presumption that led physics into the kinds of errors it currently has.
Note that I used a mere positive wave in that emulation. In reality although positive and negative are opposite, they are not equal. A negative wave looks very different than that, especially when the mass field has an electric charge associated with it. The presumed symmetry of positive and negative is merely a convenience presumption that happens to be erroneous. The entire Higgs Field theory is based on the notion of perfect symmetry and thus is false.
The distinction between positive and negative affects is the cause for the universe having larger positive particles compared to negative particles. The notion that the universe “could have chosen either way” is irrational and false and yet another mere excuse to cover a lack of understanding in contemporary physics.
Most mathematics in physics is oriented around the notion of forces stemming from particles and more currently “virtual particles carrying forces”. That is a presumptuous and false ontology but merely makes the mathematics easier so it is tempting. RM:AO considers every point in space as its own entity responding to its immediate environment only. Thus it involves a great deal of concern for the infinities that mathematics all but disregards and would totally disregard if it were not for calculus wherein infinitesimals are compared (the right way to do it). RM:AO must also compare the infinities which leads to a different form or nature of mathematics not well suited to more common mathematics.
“Afflate analysis” is a method or form of mathematics that I created so as to handle the issue of the millions of simultaneous equations involved. The problem is that it leads to needing millions of discrete entities which require computers with very large memories and high processing speeds (which you wouldn’t think to be a problem these days).
Once proper emulation is made on each fundamental level, more simple forms of math modeling can be ascertained and proven to be correct (not presumed). Jack used “higher level” models derived from lower level principles so as to emulate full particles that would normally require millions of discrete entities for each particle. But to use a simplified model, one must first prove the model using lower principles. I wanted to use Jacquelin to display each logical step involved - the very same thing that you just requested.
A current thought that I am wondering about involves negative particles in deep space.
A positive affect merely means an increasing of an affect whereas a negative affect means a decreasing in affect. Meta-space is a region of absolutely no affectance. So you can inject a positive wave or particle to meta-space and derive how it would behave. But you cannot inject a negative wave or particle into meta-space because there is no affectance to be decreasing.
So a question arises concerning what would happen if a negative particle such as an electron were to be propelled into deep space. I don’t know how low the affectance field (the “gravity field”) between the galaxies is, but if it is low enough, an electron would not be able to exist in that space. So presuming that it is actually that low, what happens to the electron?
A proton or neutron in such an environment would simply reduce and eventually disperse into random and very subtle EMR waves. If the affectance between the galaxies is actually low enough, any space ship trying to cross that space would simply dissolve into nothing as its protons and neutrons dispersed and vanished. But exactly what happens to the electrons? I see two possible options right now and need a Jack to answer which (if either) would happen.
The first idea concerning an electron in deep space is that it too would simply disperse and long before the protons did. If that is the case, a spaceship would merely deconstruct as its atoms fell apart producing a plasma which then dispersed into pure subtle EMR.
But there is another possibility. Perhaps as the electrons approach an extremely low affectance region, they simply stop migrating in that direction and refuse to go any further. If that is the case, I suspect that they would subsequently keep the protons from going any further as well. So a spaceship headed into deep space might simply discover a barrier where it cannot go any further regardless of how hard it tries. Any mass leaving a galaxy might find itself incapable of leaving. And that would have consequences regarding the equations regarding presumed gravitational affects “holding the galaxies” into that spiral condition they seem to have. And it would alter the speculations concerning how much dark matter was really involved.
To resolve that deeply concerning an immediately personal issue that is obviously so terribly relevant to every life, I need a better PC. Hey! It’s at least as relevant as finding the Higgs boson (and costs a hell of lot less). 
“The reason for this attraction is not understood in traditional physics,”
The reason for X is not understood in traditional physics,
The reason for X is not understood in Y,
No matter how perfect Y is, no matter how many different and improved Ys there are, you will always find some X that cannot be “understood” in Y or in anything at all as the very idea of “understood” is vague, can mean so many different things, is subjective, etc. Anything can be declared understood well enough or not at all depending on the subjective measurements and expectations the Processing Subject is Executing…
And there is no end to the possible inventions of new Ys and Xs and so forth…
ted
Do you have to sabotage and make any thread about you James and your gibberish which we’ve already seen? Or can someone post something where you don’t make it all about you? Is it just me or is James getting boring? You’re just repeating yourself James endlessly if it’s not an attack on science it’s this nonsense. Ok this thread mentions your nonsense not even wrong hypothesis you plagiarised from others, but does it have to get the same posts that we have already seen that nobody bought in the first place? Or can we get something novel from you?
I await James ignoring anyone who makes a valid contention except his sock puppets… bookmarked to watch the arm waving. 