Whether or not they should be kept separate depends on your purposes. My purpose in this argument is simply to say that a photon adds in the formation of a gravitation field ( ← there, I used your wording). Whether that turns out to be in virtue of a force exerting itself or the bending of spacetime around the photon makes no difference to my purpose. It doesn’t even seem to make a difference to your purpose. You seem to be saying, not so much that gravity is the bending of spacetime as opposed to a Newtonian force, but that it requires two or more photons interacting such as to create rest mass as opposed to a single photon creating gravity directly.
If your making an issue out of this for some other, more general, purpose–like trying to correct common misconceptions wherever and whenever they arise–as opposed to correcting my current point, then all the power to you. Can’t promise I’ll be all gung ho about your campaign, but if I can be bothered, I might think about the exact wording I use if it will make you happy. Just realize that if you catch me using the word “exert” or “gravitational force” I’m not trying to insinuate that Newton was right (or QM) and Einstein was wrong. I’m just using common lay person parlance.
I understand this of your theory, which is why I wonder about your fixation on “exert” implying a force. Would it make any difference if I said a photon bends spacetime?
Which quote? All I know about a static EM field is that it doesn’t vary with time. Obviously, this means you would need more than one photon (but I think the same would be true for “dynamic” EM waves as any way of determining variance over time requires at least two measurements which means at least two photons.
Got it.
I understand this to be your view, not necessarily that of the scientific community at large. If you can assure me that all the experiments on record that relate to the topic at hand fit perfectly well with your theories, then I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but so far I can’t take you as an authority on this matter.
I agree. I’m not saying that a particular instance of energy is always identical to matter, just equivalent–as in, if you had X amount of EM energy, that’s equivalent to Y amount of matter. I’m also saying that because matter can be converted to other forms of energy, its gravity generating effect will carry over to the energy of that conversion (at least that’s what my research tells me).
Thanks for the videos James. Visuals really help a lot. Good demonstration on how particles are formed. The point that afflates will be diverted in the direction of more dense afflates answers my question, especially the animation of a whole field of afflates being “sucked in” towards the concentration of affectance forming a new particle. It’s like a small object being diverted on its trajectory through space as it passes by a large planet or sun, and the formation of particles from a whole field of afflates being pulled into the concentration of affectance is like two neutron stars orbiting each other in a tight embrace, which when seen through a telescope might seem like an interstellar “particle” (with a frequency no less).
One point I’m a bit confused about is how affectance passing through affectance has a delaying effect yet affectance will be diverted towards a greater density of nearby affectance. The delaying effect implies a slowing down of the delayed affectance’s speed. But the diverting effect implies a speeding up, at least along the direction of the diversion (which, by the looks of it in the video, brings the diverted affectance into the field of the denser affectance). Can you explain that?
From what I gather so far, it seems that these kinds of behaviors at the level of afflates and the kinds of behaviors we see at the astronomical level (what we call the effects of gravity) are the exact same phenomenon–gravity, in other words, is a fundamental pattern of behavior that is built into affectance, whether that’s elementary units of affectance (afflates) or massive concentrations of them (planets and stars). Although you did say that a single unit of affectance (like a photon) doesn’t generate gravity, but in all case where one such unit diverts the trajectory of another, we are dealing with more than one unit (and the divergence counts as what you called an “interaction”). Is rest mass, therefore, just this interaction? I mean, the diversion of the smaller unit of affectance when it passes close to the larger unit is sort of the “beginning” of a mass particle being formed–not enough divergence for the smaller unit of affectance to be completely “pulled in”, but perhaps enough for a very brief emergence of what would look like “rest mass” (btw, is this how you explain virtual particles?).
As I mentioned earlier, “only at its exact location. It does not have ANY extended field surrounding it (unlike a mass particle).”
Except that free radiant energy does not have inertia or gravity.
That depends. The surrounding “gravity field” is independent energy from the mass particles. A mass particle, if placed into free space, will collect a new gravity field around it from the free floating surrounding affectance. You have to consider that when equating the amount of energy involved. There is “zero-point energy” involved in certain situations (energy seemingly arising from nowhere).
I just realized that in that old clip, an “afflate” isn’t defined.
Afflate ≡ a minuscule, oblate, non-specific, portion of affectance.
An afflate is not a particle or actually physically independent. It is merely an extremely small portion chosen by the observer to tag. It doesn’t exist as a separate entity, such as a particle or an atom. It is like pointing to a small handful of a cloud and watching that one portion shift around. It is a “virtual particle” in that it is merely chosen to be considered and observed as if it was a particle, even though there is no discrete distinction between it and it’s surroundings. It is merely a very, very small amount of the affectance field with no specific size and chosen for sake of study.
To have an actual gravity field, the affectance must slope from a relatively low density field to a higher density field. Merely the presence of affectance is not enough. There absolutely must be a gradient. If you want to defeat gravity, merely remove the gradient in the field - make it uniform. You don’t have to remove the energy or affectance. The slope is the gravity field (and another reason why a photon could never generate such a field - it doesn’t stick around).
And yes, all gravitation (or more properly “migration”) occurs due to the imbalance in the surrounding affectance field. Electric charge effects occur for a very similar reason concerning the affectance field. Particles relocate their center because the field is more dense on one side than the other. The higher density causes the particle to reconstitute itself (which it is constantly doing) a little closer into the more dense region. Between two masses, the field is much denser, thus both masses migrate into the space between the two. They are not actually attracted to each other. They are attracted into the more dense field. If you can create a more dense field on the opposite side as the other mass, the one mass will move away from that other mass into your more dense field. The nucleus of atoms form by that same process.
As far as the diverting into the more dense field effect, think about a bicycle passing you as you grab hold of the riders shoulder near you, slowing it down. Which direction would the bicycle veer? Toward you. When you slow the right side of a light photon (or any afflate) more than the left (realize that the photon is passing through the field, not glancing off of it) the entire photon is slowed more on the right side, thus it veers to that right said. Once free of the slope, it continues straight in the new direction.
You can think of a mass-particle somewhat like a slow motion whirlpool or tornado wherein the center is much, much slower than the periphery. The particle acts as a slow-motion or time-warp trap for portions of affectance (EMR) passing by. That is what we call “rest mass”. And that effect is what causes the Relativity issue of time slowing down in strong gravity fields (“time dilation” effect). And then because of such slowing, the distance between minuscule peaks becomes shorter, thus giving the effect of containing more substance within a shorter distance (“length contraction” effect). So the theory of General Relativity will yield accurate measures, but not because of any “warping of the fabric of spacetime”, but rather merely because affectance slows/retards itself and both time and distance measurements are affected.
Such self-retarding behavior is due to the fact that affectance is causing changes in PtA as fast as possible and when more affectance enters the same space, it is trying to make additional change to that same PtA level. Changes that are already transpiring as fast as possible cannot be sped up, thus whatever affectance is trying to propagate through that space, must simply wait its turn. That effect is what causes “inertia” and also what causes what you know as the “magnetic field” - a compressed affectance field due to the affectance being held back and piling up. When the retarded affectance field finally escapes the denser field, it “springs back”, losing its compression, and producing what you know as “electromagnetic induction”.
Fair enough. Now would it be fair to say that the affectance “puff” (as you call it) just is the warping of spacetime in that very small region? And would the perimeters of that tiny “dip” in space (so to speak) mark the boundaries of what can be affected by that puff and what can’t? As in, you cross the perimeter and you are affected, but don’t cross it, and you are not affected. Or would that be affecting? Or are the puffs mutually affecting each other, like gravity? But in any case, anything outside that dip in space is unaffected/ing–it’s as if it doesn’t exist to the other puff.
Furthermore, I assume once a smaller puff crosses the boundary into a bigger puff, it is affected such as to diverge (as per your video).
Can I call these things puffons?
Well, apart from the “no specific size” bit, that all makes sense. So afflates are not affectance-particles. May I suggestion puffons?
Well, that answers my question from above. Sounds like you’re saying there is no gradient with a single photon, but at the same time you said (in an earlier post) that "You can claim that a photon “bends (actually compresses) spacetime, but that is only true at its precise location, not at all surrounding it.”
So what do you mean by “its precise location”? I’ve been imagining it to be like a “dip” in space, like a bell shape that tapers off towards the perimeter (where tapering would be a gradient). I thought your point was that at least it has a perimeter (an extremely small one), unlike gravity which supposedly (from what I recall) tapers off indefinitely (to infinity, I guess). ← Is this not what you’re saying? Are you saying the bending of spacetime at the photon’s “precise location” is more all-or-nothing, like a cylindar shape?
If so, I guess I can’t think of an affectance puff as just a dip in space. But then what is the gradient I see in the affectance particles in the video (bright green at the center, tapering off into dark green at the perimeter, and black in the surroundings)? Is this simply an “affectance field” which is not to be confused with the warping of spacetime around it? Does a photon not have that? I’m confused.
And this “MAD” acronym you’re using in the video–Minimum Anentropic Distance–is this how you explain same charges repelling? If you take two electrons, for example, and separate them far enough part, there might be some mutual gravitational attraction which pulls them back together, but only to a point, that point being when the mutual repulsion of their negative charges pushes them apart. Would this be because, below that minimum distance, there ends up being too little space between them to carry a large amount of affectance (though what little there is is still extremely dense) and more affectance outside the region between them?
And if so, how do you explain the attractive force between an electron and a proton?
I see. So does this mean that affectance can’t overlap? Like vehicles stuck in a traffic jam, you can’t have one vehicle passing through other? In other words, it’s not like a wave that can pass right over another wave, amplifying it at its crest? I would have thought it could seeing as how you can have one puff of affectance moving through at least the periphery of another where it gets diverted.
In my mind, this leads to the question: what happens when a whole collection of affectance puffs accumulate, as in your animation of a particle forming? Do they eventually overlap at the center, creating a more powerful affectance (a higher PtA) or do they simply remain caught in the vicinity of the original puff, creating a bigger field of affectance like a longer stretch of vehicles in a traffic jam? I’m imagining something like a black hole for comparison. A black hole will grow more powerful (in terms of gravity) the more matter it sucks in, and also grow bigger (in terms of the size of the event horizon). With affectance, would the result be equivalent to both these? Only one? Neither?
If you want to try to use the Spacetime/Relativity Ontology, then yes, a puff of affectance, whether light photon or tiny little afflate amount, would translate into a compression bubble (a “dip” or a “bump”) in spacetime (but note that Spacetime/Relativity ontology includes no cause for such a thing). And when two such bubbles cross paths, they become a larger bump, temporarily slowed by the crossing (again without cause in Relativity Ontology). Try to keep in mind that an afflate has no actual/real border. An afflate is merely a chosen portion (imaginary border) of the affectance field stuff (the rapid changing of the minuscule PtA levels; “spikes”, “pulses” or “noise”).
But also realize that space IS those pseudo-bubbles, thus in this following anime of “empty” space, the yellow stuff would be your low voltage compression bubbles and the blue would be your higher voltage compression bubbles of spacetime. In RM:AO the yellow is the negative/decreased PtA and the blue is the positive/Increased PtA. Remember that “affectance density” is the amount of changing within a region, not the PtA level.
“Empty” Space:
Take any small portion of that stuff to make an “afflate”. I used from 20,000 to 200,000 afflates (I forgot how many now) to make that 3D volume of emulated affectance or “empty” space. Every afflate is made of afflates because an afflate is merely a tiny portion of affectance, not a discrete entity. And no matter how tiny of a portion you take, it looks and behaves just like a larger portion all the way down to infinitely small. Nothing behaves any differently at all until a particle forms. A sub-atomic monoparticle is the very lowest structural form in the universe (roughly spherical).
And you can call them “puffons” if you want, just don’t confuse them with the tamps.
I’m kind of busy at the moment. I’ll get to the rest of your post later.
derived from the second law of thermodynamics if I remember correctly. There is nothing in existence which does not have entropy – so I am informed, but if we could measure accurately then it wouldn’t exist…
There are only 3 fundamental concerns from which the entire universe is formed:
PtA level (aka “static voltage”)
Affectance density (amount and level of changing PtA, aka “degree of mass”)
3D spatial geometry.
The formation and location of a traffic jam of affectance noise, a particle, is determined by the retardation of the affectance propagation. The retardation of propagation is determined by how much changing of the PtA is taking place. And that changing can be in one of two forms:
Density - the average amount of up and down changing within a region (anywhere from 0+ to 1-) - “neutral”.
Level - the range of the PtA level changing taking place across a region (eg. from 10 eV to 20 eV) - “positive” or “negative”
So far, we have been talking about merely the density issue causing migration of neutrally charged particles (“gravitation”). When a particle has what we call a “charge potential” (a voltage), its migration is far more dependent upon the change in level issue of the PtA (how much from low to high across a region) over the density issue (how much noise within the region). The direction and speed of migration is always an issue of the difference in propagation retardation (of the affectance that is always coming and going in and out of the particle) from one side to the other. And that difference in propagation retardation is an issue of the gradient slope between most and least. The greater the slope, the stronger and faster the migration.
With charged particles, the retardation of propagation is primarily caused by the PtA level slope from the center of the particle outward. Wherever that slope is greater is where the particle center will migrate. This occurs due to each minuscule portion of increasing or decreasing PtA pulse having to change the PtA level to a higher or lower level as it climbs or descends the slope. A stronger slope requires a greater degree of change from one point to the next than would be required if the slope was flat.
That anime is trying to express that the stronger/sharper slope to the right of particle B is causing a greater propagation retardation of the minuscule pulses than on the left (note that the little pulses meet slightly to the right of center each time). And it is that sharper slope that is causing the particle to reconstitute slightly more to the right as time passes. The charged particles don’t actually repel or attract each other (there are no forces involved), rather each particle affects the PtA level in the region such as to establish a difference in the PtA slopes and the particles merely migrate in the direction of the greater slope so as to maintain their anentropic shelter.
The slope between a positive and a negative particle is even stronger and thus both particles more strongly migrate to that middle region, not “attracted” to each other, but to the region between them. And the closer they get, the sharper the slope and thus the faster and stronger they migrate (which is why they reflect an “inverse r-squared attractive force” between them).
In a sense, physicists have been wrong from the very beginning in thinking that particles attract or repel each other and that mass attracts mass. The reality has always been that particles, by their natural process of maintaining anentropic sheltering (maintaining themselves against entropy), migrate into the greater changing of either the PtA level (difference in “voltage”) or the Affectance density (difference in “mass” density).
I don’t know if that vid-clip is showing properly. It isn’t showing properly on my browser today, although has in the past.
The mass attraction effect is much, much weaker than the charge attraction/repulsion effect. And electrons (“monoparticles”) have extremely low mass such that even extremely close to each other, the gravitational effect would be very small. For particles to actually adhere to each other, they have to be forced together (assuming that they didn’t originally form close together) and also acquire much more mass, which automatically occurs when they are close enough to be called “touching”.
What they call the “strong force” is the effect of getting two particles close enough to each other that the gravitational migration is stronger than the charge repulsion effect (as shown in the above anime if it is working on your browser). Again, in reality, there is no actual force at all. And also because the particles are so very close, they automatically adhere more affectance as they form a mutual anentropic shelter and thus the combined particle (a “polyparticle”) has a “greater mass” than merely the sum of their individual masses. The extra mass was named a “gluon particle” even though there is no third particle present (which explains why they have never actually seen a gluon).
No. Affectance always overlaps affectance and thereby creates more propagation retardation (“higher density”, “thicker space”, or “compressed spacetime”).
The anentropic sheltering determines how large a particle can be. The black hole is so large that it cannot reach a stable anentropic size and thus merely keeps growing. My guess is that eventually they either break apart due to instability in rotation or they collide with each other causing a serious “Baby Bang” and a new galaxy.
I try to avoid personal appearances.
Please let me know if some of these vid-clips are not showing up (or whether it is merely my own browser).
So I take it there is no fundamental particle in your ontology. I remember you did say that affectance is infinitely divisible. From what I gather, affectance can take the form of particles (which you simulate in some of your videos) but these shouldn’t be taken to be fundamental, correct?
This part is somewhat obscure to me. The first graph (density) seems like a wave whose frequency increases as it moves to the right (a function of time?), while the second graph (level) seems like a steady (though not linear) rise in affectance level. The first graph, you called an “ever changing PtA level” meaning that the potential to affect in the region keeps going from positive to negative at an increasing rate. The second graph, you called the “affectance level” meaning a steady rise in the amount of affectance in the area. Assuming the graphs are related, I interpret them to mean that if the PtA at a location is changing rapidly, then there must be a lot of affectance in the area (a second-order level of affectance, vis-a-vis your affectance upon affectance).
I take it both graphs represent the conditions under which retardation takes place–when the PtA level is changing at a fast rate and when the amount of affectance in the area is high (and both are the same?).
That makes sense. With a steeper slope, the affectance particles migrate towards the particle more slowly, causing the affectance particles migrating from the other side to meet them a little on the right side of the peek.
But are you saying it’s the particles themselves that cause the steepness of the slope upon each other?
I’m not sure how sheltering forms around a particles, but it sounds like you’re saying that the strong force is really just gravity.
Like I said in my PM to you, your videos are coming through fine.
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?
). And they seek the most excitement/changing (a bit feminine in that regard as well).