Correct. The lowest form of affectance “particles” are what modern science views as “subatomic particles”; electrons, positrons, neutrinos, protons,… And they are formed of merely affectance noise (what science refers to as “electromagnetic energy”).
Hmmm… A lack of communication here.
The intent was to show that the affectance level rising IS the frequency of the PtA rising. The higher frequency (content) of the PtA changing is what the higher affectance is. Affectance IS the changing of the PtA levels within a region. And higher “density affectance” means that there is a great deal of PtA changing in the region, much like thicker grass on a lawn versus thinner. The height of the grass is the PtA level. The rate that it grows or dies is the affectance level and the amount of grass within a specified region is the affectance density.
Ultimately mass particles get formed by the affectance getting extremely concentrated such that the cluster is self-sustaining, the “traffic jam” effect. The traffic jams occur because as the affecting of the affecting takes place, propagation of the affecting retards, because it takes longer to affect more greatly. The only substance that you can ever see is the traffic jams of the substance that you cannot see.
If you could gather all of the affectance in a large region of truly totally particle free empty space and compress it down, it would form an actual subatomic particle that would remain there after you released it. And the surrounding space would have refilled instantly as you were compressing the original affectance. If you could continue doing that long enough, you could construct a planet out in space out of what appeared to be nothing at all, “empty space”.
The traffic jams spread into the surrounding region and thus add to the slope condition. One traffic jam (particle) will cause the PtA slope surrounding a nearby particle to be different and thus the nearby particle will automatically shift.
The “shelter” is merely the natural effect of the traffic jam. If you watch an actual traffic jam, you can see that the lack of freedom of each car is determined by the lack of freedom of those surrounding it (obvious enough). And toward the center, there is no freedom at all because it is totally surrounded by a great deal of lack of freedom of others. And as you look further from the center, the freedom increases gradually as each car relieves a little more of the surrounding cars. The “shelter” is merely the inability for any movement to occur. The guy in the center CAN’T get run over by a bus because the bus simply can’t get there due to the aggregate effort of the other cars. He is “sheltered” from entropy for as long as the traffic jam is sustained from entropy due to each car retarding the others progressively more toward the center.
Ok, that makes sense. So would it be fair to say that if we apply a great deal of affectance to an area, we will see the amount of change in the PtA level in that area go up by both degree and frequency (degree meaning how tall/short each blade of grass gets, frequency meaning how readily you can go from really tall to really short just by looking at adjacent blades of grass)?
Would it be fair to compare the affectance being applied to the area as like a hurricane, and the changing PtA level as the waves in the ocean created by that hurricane?
And do I have the right idea of affectance upon affectance here?
Hmm… catchy phrase.
So there’s always something in “empty space”–affectance–and there is never absolutely empty space anywhere. Is this correct?
This is where the common abstract understand of “affectance” vs. that of “stuff” or “particle” comes to the fore. It’s obvious that you’re saying there is “something” there–some energy or “aether”, for lack of a better word, that behaves the way you describe, but you seem to be saying more than this; you seem to be saying this “something” is literally affectance. I take you to mean this no differently than in the common abstract sense of affectance (something affecting something else), and I recall you saying that you can prove this to be necessary.
If you can show how affectance can be both the common abstract phenomenon of something affecting something else and a thing being affected, then I’ll bite.
Right, but in science, it’s typically accepted as a fact that there are different kinds of particles with different properties (electron, quarks, gluons, etc.), and each one preserves it’s properties. An electron will never behave like a proton, for example. What I’m gathering from you so far seems to say that all particles are the same–simply affectance gathered into an epicenter, a traffic jam–and that how it behaves in the vicinity of other such concentrations of affectance is a matter of how it’s been affected before by other affectance concentrations. But you don’t hear of this happening in mainstream science. An electron isn’t affected by a proton in such a way that it ceases to be an electron and becomes some other particle.
I can see how one traffic jam might affect the behavior or characteristics of another traffic jam–for example, a traffic jam at one intersection can cause another traffic jam at an adjacent intersection to double–but what is it about that affect that makes the doubling of the latter a permanent characteristic (such that we can say “that traffic jam is an X-type traffic jam, which are typically double the size of Y-type traffic jams like the one in the next intersection, and we can always expect it to be double even when the Y-type traffic jam moves away”)?
In your video here, for example:
you leave the viewer with the impression that these affectance clusters (at least sometimes) form structures around/within themselves that function to self-preserve. These structures would have to be what manifest to scientists as the unique signatures of each type of particle. What this implies, however, is that you can get different kinds of structures, and those that are self-preserving will survive and be recognized by scientists as the typical run of particles in our universe. Is this how you see it?
I get that. But it is a kind of traffic jam where vehicles can enter or leave from any direction. Tying this back to my point above, I would think that the unique signature of each type of particle means that the structure of the traffic jam must be a little more complex than: thick at the center, thin at the periphery. I’m guessing you’re describing it this way for simplicity’s sake. Are the actual details of your theory more complex than this?
You are familiar with voltage related to radio signals, right? A typical radio signal involves a voltage going up and down like a sine wave. That voltage is the PtA going up and down (literally). But now imagine that you have a billion such antennas in close proximity set at random frequencies and max voltage levels (random signals). The field that all of those signals form is the “affectance field”. How concentrated the field is depends upon the signals coming from the antennas. Higher frequencies coming from the antennas means more affectance density (more “energy”) in the region. But in this example, the region would have an overall neutral PtA change because the random signals would be canceling any rise in the average PtA (voltage) level of the field.
If you had those antennas on your right and a similar set off to your left such as to have two concentrations, you could have all of the antennas to you right sending out positive pulses relative to the antennas to the left sending out negative pulses. The regions would have the same affectance density, but the region to the right would have an average positive PtA across the field and to the left, an average negative PtA level. If you could somehow compress the right field enough, you would form a positive particle, a positron. And if you compressed the left field down, you would create a negative particle, an electron (once called a “negatron”). Those particles could then be released to behave as we know such particles to behave.
Absolutely.
What is the one property that something absolutely must have for it to be said to physically exist?
That something must affect something else. The ability to affect is the fundamental property of existence. If something is known to have absolutely no affect upon anything, why say that it exists? And when do you know that something doesn’t really exist? - when there is absolutely no affect from it.
The thing that we call “electric potential” is exactly that, merely the ability to affect electric current, tiny mass particles. And t is also what we call “potential energy” - the ability to “do work” - “to affect something”.
You accept the idea that mass particles (“things”) are made of energy. And that energy is required to make changes in such particle positions and conditions. Yet “energy” is no more than a prior ubiquitous name for “affectance”. Similar is true with the name “aether” and “akasha”. The problem with those names is that they were names given to ideas that do not in themselves tell of exactly what it is that they are naming. The names “energy”, “aether”, and “akasha” don’t tell of what they are really referring to and many misconceptions arise because of it. “Affectance”, as a name, tells of what it really is (and thus also what is is not). Affectance is, in concept, what physicality requires in order to be physical (the ability to affect the physical).
The surprise is that affectance is the ONLY property required for something to be physical because to be physical merely means to be able to affect the physical, which is the ability to affect that which is affecting - “affect upon affect”. And down on the absolute fundamental level of existence, that one property is all there is, just as it would have to be when you think about it. The one essential property that absolutely must exist is the only property that does exist once you reduce everything down to its essentials. Its the only property that cannot be reduced because it is the very definition of “what is” - “that which has affect” - “affectance”.
I don’t see how you are getting that affectance particles become different. I have only been talking about them forming and moving, not becoming different. And thus far, I have only be speaking of the “monoparticles”, particles with one center, aka electron, positron, and neutron. The “gluon” isn’t actually a particle at all. Physicists couldn’t figure out why particles were willing to stick together. When they broke them apart, they found only the particles and a little extra energy (“affectance”). So as to make their force theories make sense, they speculated that there must be another particle in there that breaks up when they break up the cluster of particles (a nucleus). They named the theoretical particle “gluon” (as in “glue-on”). That was more than 100 years ago and to this day, they have never seen one. They just accept that the extra energy is from that small gluon particle. RM:AO is telling them exactly what that extra energy is, why it is there, and that it is not in the form of another particle at all.
The particles MOVE around due to other particles disturbing the surrounding affectance field within which every particle floats and of which every particle is made. The slopes involved in the PtA level causes motion of the charged particles (monoparticles or not). And the slopes involved in the Affectance Density causes motion of the neutral particles (aka “gravitation”). Of course charged particles also have a degree of neutral mass associated with them, so both affectance density slopes as well as PtA slopes affect charged particles, although the PtA level slope is a much, much greater affect.
I was afraid of that. Every time I use the word “shell” or now “shelter”, I convey the idea of a separate structure when in fact, I am referring merely to the infinitesimal spherical surface regions encompassing and constituting the traffic jam. I might need to change how that is presented (as well as the prior PtA-Affectance graph).
Because of the way most people have been educated, it is hard to get certain ideas across clearly.
There are no separate “structures” involved in a monoparticle. It is merely a cluster of affectance noise. Polyparticles are the next level of “structure” wherein multiple monoparticles get stuck together, as shown in one of those vids. Most particles in physics are polyparticles (protons, neutrons,…). Some “particles” in contemporary physics, especially QP, don’t actually exist as physical particles at all, merely mathematical concepts and/or “pseudo-particles” (“might as well be particles for all we care”).
Ok, so would you say that the rate at which the voltage goes up and down is the frequency (or at least there’s a 1-to-1 correspondence)?
And the region has an overall neutral PtA because the rise and fall in voltage goes from positive to negative, and on net balance is zero, correct?
So what would make the fields positive overall or negative overall? If I got the above correct, then I’m guess the field to the left has more negative “spikes” in its frequencies (a negative spike being a trough in the sinewave); either that, or the negative spikes are more intensely negative. Positive spikes (peeks in the sinewave) would be fewer or not as intensely positive. And visa-versa for the right field. Essentially, a field of overall negative PtA would have sinewaves that are mostly shifted below zero (though the peeks might still rise above zero) and a field of overall positive PtA would have sinewaves that are mostly shifted above zero. Correct?
James, suppose you had a set of objects. Each object can be said to have the potential to affect at least one other object in the set. This would seem to qualify the objects as existing in your view, and they would all co-exist. But suppose the objects form relations with each other such that one group formed that was completely isolated from the rest, and the rest formed into another isolated group. So, for example, suppose you had 10 objects. Objects 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 all have the potential to affect one another (thus satisfying the initial condition), but none of them have the potential to affect objects 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10. Each member of the latter group can nonetheless affect some other member of that same group, thus objects 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 also satisfy the initial condition. Would you say that both exist? Coexist?
Well, you said that: “One traffic jam (particle) will cause the PtA slope surrounding a nearby particle to be different and thus the nearby particle will automatically shift.”
It gave me the impression you thought of nearby particles as having effects on each other’s slopes; thus it gave me the image of one particle being “given” a slope that would characterize it as an electron, and then at some later point, being given a slope (by some other particle) that would characterize it as a positron. I guess I’m looking for something permanent, and what would characterized it as a permanent electron in contrast to a positron (or other particle).
Yeah, virtual particles.
I guess the difficulty I have is in imagining how a bunch of affectance particles which are all fundamentally the same can manifest to us as coming in different classes (like electrons, positrons, quarks, etc.). You did say above that the left affectance field, being negative overall, would compress down into a negatively charged particle, and the right affectance field, being positive overall, would compress down into a positively charged particle. So I guess it’s the PtA level that determines, at least in part, what type of particle we’re dealing with.
Bringing the graph in which an “electron” is shown to be migrating to the right due to a steeper slope on its right, what would happen if you placed the other particle (on the left) on the right side? Would it cause the “electron’s” slope to shift such that it was the left slope that was more steep instead?
I think so. It seems to convey that each ring around the center is supplying affectance into the center, which supports the center, which thereby gives it the ability to support the ring, and it does so by supplying affectance which is leaving the center. Every ring can be thought of as supporting an inner ring and being supported in return by that inner ring. It is also supported by an outer ring which it supports in turn. Is that right?
Of course. That is the definition of “frequency” (How frequent the changes are).
The average across the region at any one time sums to zero. If you were infinitesimal in size, and within that same region, you might very well experience serious highs and lows surrounding you. Even though the lawn has an exactly 2" average grass height, convincing that to the lady bug trying to cross that lawn might be a bit difficult. The grass still has ups and downs, even though the average is even and fixed.
As shown in one of the vids, “positive” merely means “above average”. Average might be anywhere. But anything above that average is positive relative to it. And anything below that average will be “negative” to it. Charge, both common electrical and Affectance (PtA) is always relative to a chosen neutral. So the spikes that are rising above neutral (increasing the PtA) form the positive particle. And the spikes/pulses reaching below neutral (decreasing the PtA) form the negative particle. That is what forms our atoms and common electricity issues.
Look carefully at the graph on the 4th “page” of this vid under Potential-to-Affect as it specifies an “Average Level”:
You are describing what is commonly referred to as “parallel universes”, universes that exist in the same space as each other yet have no contact with each other. Thus they have separate existence, as you describe. In concept at first, that seems a plausibility and makes for some fun sci-fi. But in the long run of the logic, it turns out to be an impossibility.
Affect upon affect is seemingly not specific to any particular kind of affect. And one might imagine all kinds of affects to have. But in reality on the most fundamental level, there are only two options and those two are actually the same thing merely thought of in different terms (a different ontology). Affecting another affect means either increasing/decreasing that affect or relocating that affect. Those are the only options on the most fundamental level. And since the affects propagate, both of those are actually describing the same thing. So the idea of having some other universe wherein there is affect of some other kind, isn’t a possibility. Either an affect changes the level of another affect (or alternatively its location) or the “affect” doesn’t actually exist at all, in any universe.
Oh, I see the problem. I was referring to changing the degree of slope, not reversing the angle. A positive particle will always have a positive slope toward the center but might vary in exact ramp rate of increasing (“positive”) depending on what is close by affecting that positive/increasing slope. But it can never reverse into a negative (decreasing) slope. A negative particle always has a decreasing or negative slope toward the center. You only have the options of positive or negative slope to match the particle charge/PtA type. The negative is like a whirl pool in the average PtA level in the region whereas the positive is like an inverted rising dust cloud (or upside down whirl pool). The exact angle of the slope then varies as nearby affectants interact with the spreading traffic jam.
In that anime, those are two positive particles (“positrons” - or actually any of the positive particle forms such as protons). And yes, of course if the left particle was on the right side instead, the moving particle (B) would move in the opposite direction away from the right toward the left. Note that the slope between the particles is always at a lower/“less sharp” angle. Particles have no idea of right and left or north and south (very feminine in that regard ). And they seek the most excitement/changing (a bit feminine in that regard as well).
I’m not sure that you read the sentence that I am referring to. It begins with, “An infinity of…”.
Sorry, I could have worded that better. I meant to ask: is the voltage frequency equal to the frequency of the EM/affectance field? Or are they just proportional?
Yep, got it.
Ok, so like hills and valleys. Usually, one would consider a hill to be “above grade”, but that depends on where you’re baseline is. If you had a small hill in a deep valley, for example, you might consider that “below grade”. And visa-versa for valleys.
I believe I’ve got it, sir.
The average level depicted in this video makes it seem like it’s more than just our arbitrary decisions on what will count as “average”, but the affectance field itself decides. Any particle that forms a “hill” in that field will react to other hills like same-charged particles react to other same-charged particles. And visa-versa for “valleys”.
Then maybe the definition of “existence” ought to be refined a little. Instead of “the ability to affect” it should be “the ability to affect anything”. Still though, I think you’d need to allow for some indirect affects. Neutrinos, for example, are said to only be affected by gravity and the weak force, not electromagnetism. However, since we can detect them, they must at least have an indirect effect on charge carrying particles, for that’s just what “detection” requires.
So if you had a set of objects, and not all of them could affect every other in the set, there must be a way for the affectance of one making its way (through others) to any other in the set. You just can’t have completely separate groups.
I guess we live in a matriarchy.
This makes a lot of sense. I was imagining that if particles A and B were of the same charge, which was characterized by each one having steeper slopes on the sides facing away from each other, then obviously particles of the opposite charge would be characterized by steeper slopes on the sides facing towards. But the inverse “polarization” (I guess you could call it) whereby you get hills and valleys makes a lot more sense.
So I take it this is just the nature of affectance. Whether the particle is a hill or a valley, the affect it will have on other hills or valleys (of the same type) is to steepen the slope on the side furthest away. But the affect that a hill will have on a valley or a valley on a hill will be to steepen the slope on the side closest.
Yes, the one that goes “An infinity of concentric, spherical shell regions…”.
That’s what I got out of it. I also got the idea that these shells are infinite (or unenumerable), and that this is what preserves the particle form that the inner-most rings take, allowing for enduring matter.
The Affectance Field as a whole or a region doesn’t have a frequency (discounting the extremely, extremely slow variation in the average PtA frequency or level of the random pulses changing, which amounts to gravitational or common radio waves.) The frequency of random PtA spikes/pulses that make up the affectance field are in the ultra extreme range, well beyond anything electronically detectable. You can only know they exist because it is impossible for them to not exist.
A positive particle is formed of the aggregation of small hills and the negative particle is made from the aggregation of small valleys. Whether standing below sea level or at 10,000 ft, you can still distinguish a hill from a valley.
Exactly. “Average” does not mean “arbitrary” (except in public school grading schemes).
Every affect is ONLY upon its infinitesimal immediate surroundings. Thus actually every affect is “indirect”. An infinity of direct affects must occur for even the smallest propagation distance to be realized. That is what causes the speed of light to be finite and fixed - an infinity of affects occurring in series at an infinite speed = finite propagation of affect (Zeno’s confounding). Then the physical size of ALL objects gets determined by that fixed max speed in the traffic jams. And that is why the universe cannot be fractal.
God might be a He, but the Universe is a She, giving birth to opportunities through all kinds of chaos and confusion resulting from His demand to be absolutely, logically consistent despite her futile effort to be deceptively otherwise.
True. If you dig a trench (a negative) exactly at the base of a mountain side (a positive) and equally as deep as the mountain is high, given settling time, the slope of the mountain side will become greater than it was (assuming the mountain doesn’t come down, which traffic jams of dirt and rock would not allow).
Okay. I sense that I need to word it differently and dispel the notion of any separate structures forming the sheltering.
Ok, so the frequency of EM waves is not the frequency of affectance, at least not at a basic level.
Yes, I get that. The hill in the valley is still a hill. But I take it this is neither here nor there for affectance; a small positive spike in the affectance field may be “below grade” relative the a much higher affectance field a certain distance away, but in order for that spike to affect anything in the higher affectance field (or visa-versa) little pulses of affectance must make their way over there, and by the time they get there, they will be above grade.
But why 300,000 km/s specifically? Why not 400,000 km/s? Or 90,000 km/s?
Maybe. I got the impression of a “structure” (a ring) from the way the ring is depicted as having clearly defined borders–it definitely starts a certain distance away from the center and it definitely ends a certain distance closer to the center. Maybe show more of a fuzzy ring–like a gradient of no opacity at the outer edge to full opacity exactly midway between the edges back to no opacity at the inner edge. And maybe, if it’s not too complicated, show the ring at various distances away from the center (no animation though–that would give off the impression the ring is moving outward/inward). ← Actually, scratch that idea. Keep it simple.
BTW, what do you use to produce your images/videos?
Anyway, James, I think I’m due for a break from this thread pretty soon. It was a good discussion, and I think I understand your theory a little better now. I don’t see anything outrageously nonsensicle about it, so it holds some merit in my view.
Just one more question: what about the size of particles? It think I get the part about affectance pulling in more affectance, and at a critical density, a particle is formed. But what stops it from amassing ever more affectance at a certain point? I mean, in terms of size, electrons are said to be 10^-16 meters. In terms of mass, they are said to be 9.1 x 10^-31 kg. In terms of charge, they are said to be -1.6 x 10^-19 coulombs. I would think that if they continually amass more and more affectance, they would eventually grow bigger than 10^-16 meters, heavier than 9.1 x 10^-31 kg, and if affectance piling up on other affectance results in higher hills or deeper valleys, then more positive or more negative as well. Is it the anentropic sheltering that prevents it from going beyond certain limits?
Normal “radio waves” are relatively huge tidal wave variations in the average PtA over the wavelength. A part of the problem in understanding RM:AO is getting a grasp of the scales involved. The shortest radio wavelength (EM wave) is a huge region of affectance. The smallest particle is a massive traffic jam of uncountably numerous, random pulses, spikes, and waves of PtA. The smallest objects in common physics are enormous structures in RM:AO.
True, but the point is that a bump is not a dip.
And it might be of mild interest to you that as a minuscule PtA pulse traverses a region of opposite charge, it actually travels faster than light. And how much faster depends upon the PtA strength of the field it is traveling through. A negative spike can travel through a positive traffic jam potentially faster than a positive spike can travel through normal space (and vsvrsa).
Such can occur because it takes time for an affect to cause a change, but how long does it take to prevent one? How long does it take to do nothing? The negative PtA spike in the positive field is actively canceling out the changes that each positive spike would have been doing. And that takes near zero time. It is reducing the affectance density wherever it goes. And that allows for it to travel as though the positive traffic jam wasn’t there. And of course, the reverse is also true. But light is both positive and negative pulses/spikes. So light gets slowed down regardless of the PtA charge and adds to the affectance density (and thus adds to the gravitational effects of the field).
Because the size of literally everything else is built upon the size of the most fundamental particles and the fields of which they are made. And the size of such particles is determined by the speed of light. A meter is only a meter because of the particular speed of light (or actually of affect). If the speed of light was to instantly double, the meter would instantly double with it and there would be no way to know that anything had occurred. It just turns out that the meter was named as a length that requires 300,000,000 of them to occupy light for one second. The light is actually determining all distances. But Man chooses what to name them and thus how many are required to fill the gaps.
The principle of anentropic shelter is what determines the size of literally everything throughout the universe (utilizing the speed of light). A fundamental monoparticle is its particular size because if it was any larger, it would lose more affectance than it was gaining. And if it was any smaller, it would gain more affectance than it was losing. Every particle (and every structure of every type) is exactly at the balance of its losing and its gaining at all times. Its state of growth is that balance.
The shape of an object determines how much affectance can enter and leave through every infinitesimal surface region throughout the entire structure. It is a matter of geometry and speed of affect.
In the extreme case of a “black hole”, basically the geometry gets out of hand such that there is no limit to the size of further growth until the particle is so large as to either spin itself apart or smash into another of its own kind. At that point, it explodes into a new galaxy. A black hole is merely a single affectance particle having no stable center of highest density, but rather a scattering of forming and unforming potential particle epicenters within an extremely dense affectance traffic jam blob, ever shifting, spinning, and growing.
One last short vid. I uploaded this little bit concerning the Afflate. It might make a few things make a little more sense (maybe not). It runs a bit too fast as is.
And then all of those together is what makes “things exist” … or cease to exist.
Hmm… well, what about the point you made earlier that the speed of light is the maximum speed at which affectance can travel? Or are you saying that a negative spike within a positive field (or visa-versa) is not really affectance but the cancellation of affectance?
So you’re saying that black holes aren’t really made of particles at all–not the kind we typically call “particles” at least–but a “smear” of affectance that may have once been a collection of particles. Is that right?
Yes, that helps get the gist of your general view across. Essentially, everything is a field (of affectance), not discrete units (particles). Affectance can be broken down or built up into any size afflate one arbitrarily chooses, which means there is no “smallest piece”. It is infinitely divisible.
Ok, I think that’s good enough for me, James. I’m going to take a break from this thread. Thanks for enlightening me on your views.
Actually its more proper to say that the speed of affect is the maximum speed that light can travel. The distinction that I was making is that a pulse increase in PtA and a pulse decrease in PtA travel at different speeds depending upon the field they are traversing. A puff of affectance making up a light photon has both increasing and decreasing pulses within it (it is not a single wave as is often depicted). Their averaged speed is the speed of the photon. If the puff is going through a positive electric field, the positive pulses within the puff are a little more retarded than the negative (or vsvrsa). So a small portion of the affectance is traveling faster than the entire puff can travel and a small portion is traveling slower than the entire puff can travel. But they keep running into each other making the puff their traveling traffic jam traveling at their averaged speed.
The significance is that while approaching a positive particle, a negative pulse will travel significantly faster than a positive pulse. That situation helps to maintain the charge of the particle. And also by using the “side-band” concept, communicating across a charged field at faster than light speed could be arranged (using only positive or only negative pulses for the signal).
Right. Just like a sub-atomic particle is not made of smaller particles, neither is a black hole. A black hole is actually just an extremely huge particle that has no stable epicenter but rather uncountably many popping up and fading away all the time. Black holes are made of the affectance that all of the mass and light entering them were made of before they entered and got absorbed (resistance was futile).
Well, thank you for your feedback on the vids. I can see that I need to do a lot of work on them. I am always a bit lost when it comes to where to start explaining things to those who are engulfed in another world.
So this means we might see a photon stretched out in a noticeably positive or negative field.
I’ve always had a vision of black holes being dark demonic monsters.
Same here. You should really consider writing a book. That’s what I did for my theory of consciousness, and it forced me to think about how it would have to be explained in a linear fashion. Same might work for you.
…wasn’t the point, but probably true. And the distinction in velocities might require a few light years of distance to clearly detect. One might have to move to a more positive galactic neighborhood.
One of the many reasons why it gets difficult to determine where to begin.
… btw, HDD w/ all of the video work on it crashed … might get to start it all from scratch.
Well, it takes “too long” (largely my own fault) and which software is a decision that I might have to remake. Blender is a good package but takes a lot of memorizing special key codes.
Originally, years ago, I wanted to use Blender or the like as the background software for my emulator, Jack. But such programs cannot (or could not) handle the number of discrete items involved (200,000+). So I just wrote my own (sloppy, but effective). Currently, I am not emulating but merely simulating and explaining, so it is a different issue (usually). The 3D effects are handled really well in Blender, but it might take me a year to learn how to make it do what I prefer. An expert could probably cut through it all in a matter of weeks, possibly even days (my brain is still operating off of 10" tape reels for memory ).
). And they seek the most excitement/changing (a bit feminine in that regard as well).
… might get to start it all from scratch. 
).