The validity is demonstrated by how closely your results match physical observations. There is no other validity.
Does your “emulation” produce the observed physical mass particles (protons, electrons, neutrons) in the correct sizes?
Does it produce other masses?
Does it produce electric charge?
Does it produce photons which move as we observe photons to move?
Etc.
That is not actually true.
Despite the recent propaganda that science is the only true prophet, there is a grain of dirt in their method. What people think they are observing is often not what they think. Newton and followers were certain that they had observed the LAWS of motion. They spoke of “rigid bodies” and “forces”, neither of which actually exist. But they “observed them” anyway, because they didn’t actually understand what they were seeing. Later their “laws” had to be withdrawn and replaced by “theories”, guesses and speculations. Just look at the nonsense that quantum physicists profess as “observations”.
How could you have been around me for all these years and not know the answer to that??
First, it produces, from the randomness and chaos, particles. Those particles automatically form in one of 3 types, a “positive”, “negative”, and “neutral” (although I suspect that you weren’t paying enough attention to know to what those terms refer). The emergent particles behave in exactly the same manner as science has noted actual physical particles.
Merely from that point, a fantastic issue has been resolved: How does something come from [near] nothing? And Why is there positive and negative charge? and Why do mass particles attract? and Why do like charges repel while unlike charges attract? and then How can like charged particles cling together? and Why do electrons orbit nuclei rather than fall into the positive center?
Even without the precise mathematics involved, very many formerly unanswered questions are already answered.
The math merely gains precision, not understanding. - James S Saint
And btw, Richard Feynman professed that quantum physics, a man-made ontology, is forever impossible for man to understand - a profession and proclamation of true magic (anti-science).
Rigid bodies and forces are a model of reality. They match reality to some degree and in specific situations. So for example, a rubber ball is not a rigid body and you don’t use rigid body equations when dealing with rubber balls.
Your afflates don’t actually exist. You use them for a purpose.
Everything in your head is a model of reality.
You’re the only one who has access to your “emulator” and you’re the only one who has access to the results. Nobody can confirm your results.
So you say, but is it true.
Let’s just call this a point of disagreement.
No they are not. They exist nowhere in reality at all. They were discovered to be merely appearance, not the reality.
What the hell do you think the alternate emulation is for???
I just told you that other emulations have to be produced for validation. What did you think we were talking about?
Now you are just jabbering without thinking.
So what does it mean if somebody writes another “emulator” and it produces results which are different from yours?
It could mean that they made a mistake in the code. It could mean that they don’t have the correct mathematical model. It could mean that you have a mistake in your code. It could mean that you don’t have the correct mathematical model.
It could mean that both of your “emulators” are poor.
If you already have the results which match experimental observations, then you already have the correct theory. Why would somebody else have to write a different “emulator”??? It makes no sense.
Oh, and Aaron,
This is not only a view of “empty space”, but also a view of what is going on, on a different scale, within each afflate. And if you were to choose one of those little buzzing portions, inside that one, again on a lower scale, you would see that same image.
That would be an image of space as an observer moved by toward the left or also, on a lower scale, an image of a single afflate propagating to the right.
It’s fundamentally like this :
Somebody brews a tasty beer.
You ask how it is done. The brewmaster describes the process in detail. You repeat his process.
If you get a different result, then you look for the factors which may have produced the difference. You try to control these factors as best as you can, in order to get the “tasty result”.
If you get the “tasty beer” that you wanted, then you can look for ways to make it even better.
The key is that the brewmaster has to explain how he does it, otherwise you are fumbling in the dark.
You say that Affectance Ontology is an infinite regress and if it is then there can be no such thing as a single afflate
It is afflates all the way down so any random afflate no matter how small will be composed of even smaller afflates
That’s right. But what you seem to have missed is that an afflate is an arbitrarily chosen size for the sake of study and emulation composition. An afflate IS NOT an actual entity. It is merely representative of tiny portion of the field so that either the software can adjust the field to emulate an actual infinitely divisible field or the observer can watch that tiny portion to see where it ends up. It is much like putting a number on each water molecule in a cloud. But unlike the H2O in a cloud, an affectance afflate can always be divided down even smaller to yield merely a even smaller afflates. How small one wants to go depends merely on what is being studied.
Quantum Physics speaks of “virtual particles”. Most people don’t question what that means. What it means is that the “particle” isn’t an actual particle, but rather merely a small clump of energy that is going to be treated as a particle in the equations. An afflate is very much like that in that an afflate is not an actual separate particle to itself. It is instead, merely a chosen tiny portion of the “energy” (if you like). In Quantum Mechanics, an afflate would be called a “virtual particle” even though, like other virtual particles, it isn’t an actual individual entity, merely “some”, “a bunch”, or “a portion”.
Virtual particles are so called because of the infinitesimally short time that they exist compared to that of real particles
And not because they are not regarded as particles as such although the distinction between the two types is necessary
► ALL physicality is made of affectance (ultra-minuscule EMR pulses and waves). When many of the pulses are propagating together in the same direction, they form a “photon” passing through the more chaotic ambient affectance, much like a sound pulse traveling through water.
► If the ambient affectance density increases (more noise/energy within a given amount of space), the propagating bundle is slowed by the increase in interference. If the ambient density decreases, the interference to the propagation decreases and the bundle speeds up again.
► Affects are ALWAYS propagating at the maximum possible. It is only the ambient density that alters how fast that is.
► A bundle of affectance must slow down when it encounters a dense region of ambient affectance.
If the ambient affectance density increases²
the propagating bundle is slowed by the increase in interference.
If the ambient density decreases
the interference to the propagation decreases and the bundle speeds up again.
► Affects are always propagating at the maximum speed possible.³
James
I have been toying with rendering different amounts and different sizes of afflates inside the meta-box.
Apologies for my absence.
I think I need to setup a deferment protocol. More on that soon.
I have the affectance in doing the random dance - with the re-entry as discussed - I have also settled on a couple of high speed renderers up to the task of what we are trying to achieve. That is it for the software talk for today.
I need to start on these rules of engagement.
I will post a video of an unimpressive sparse field soon - I want to work with the density and scatter first.
Based on the emulator scatter principle in this little beauty:
I want to do the swirling thing in 3D.
looking forward for that.
The scatter looks easier to achieve.
The density looks easy - I need to convert some code to use binary operations here so that I have a bitmap of the density field. I will approximate off of the bitmap the denser field so that I can defer some operations - this is not permanent - I have a reason for it though.
I want to make the calculations simpler so I need to do some conversion rather early.
I will use the principles contained in AD(analog to digital) conversion to achieve this.
I do mean unimpressive though because I was analyzing tennis balls.
I will post a still screen so you can see what I mean when I say unimpressive.
Please ignore the colors
That is running with 3500 fairy floss balls at random sizes between 0.000100 and 2.500000
Video to follow soon . . .
If you are going to do the scatter thing in 3D (a separate issue), use the following formula as your static ambient density:
$$Ab = \frac{1 }{(1 + 4\pi((x-a)^2 + (y-b)^2 + (z-c)^2))}$$
where {a,b,c} is the center point of the cube.
I appreciate you posting that James.
I am doing everything in 3D except for the earlier posts in here talking about arrays.
Actually that is great, although you will need at least 20,000, preferably 200,000.
And it works even better if you relate the opacity of each afflate to its assigned density (from 0 to 0.1). And I used the coloring of blue for positive and yellow for negative PtA, yielding a greenish mix.
Too easy James - I will start out with that - you don’t know how much I appreciate that information. The User interface is switched off in the pic I posted.