New theory of quantum world

[EugeneMorrow]

Everyone,

This thread was originally about an alternative to quantum mechanics (qm) called the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). TEW is published in the form of a book and a paper in a physics journal, both by Dr. Lewis E. Little. Since all alternatives to qm are welcome in this thread, we are now spending a lot of time discussing a new and unpublished theory of science, physics and everything called Rational Metaphysics (RM) developed by James S Saint. The debate is about how RM applies to physics, rather than all the other areas. Sometimes James has some personal speculations that extend RM, which we call JSSRM (James S Saint Rational Metaphysics).

Typist,

I've realized that I am unusual because I like Science theory - I want to know the assumptions and logic and deductions underneath everything. Even amongst Scientists, that is rare, because most of them want to construct gadgets and perform circus tricks with their equipment.

It's one of the reasons that TEW is such a hard sell. TEW gives exactly the same predictions and results in almost every experiment that qm does (thanks to the Reciprocity theorem) - the difference is about the explanations. So it's only theory fans like me that want to sniff around that sort of thing. The typical gadget scientist doesn't care that much - the current theory (qm) is good enough for what they want to do.

I think James is rightly concerned with theory and the lack of philosophy in how many theories like qm are constructed, and he wants that to be the focus. So he likes discussions with people like me.

The other side of that is that I think James has an issue with control. We were talking about revolutions (in ideas) and he wrote this on page 7 of this forum:

Not all revolutions are good. And none remain controlled by the founders.

I believe James is concerned with losing control of the ideas. He has said there are military applications to his ideas, so there is a definite moral dimension.

So it's not an issue of motivation - I think James wants to keep the publicity of RM to discussions of ideas, rather than power hungry types who want to jump into action before thinking.

So James wants philosophy to be the issue that is discussed. In that light, I think he's doing OK by getting on forums like this one.

I still recommend my suggestion: a "main" book of principles of RM, and then "subject" specific books and papers so that interested people can follow their interests. It's not so different from what you were suggesting.


James,

On the subject of publishing RM, I now have an extra suggestion: make physics the LAST subject area you cover.

I think physics is awfully big and complicated, and has the military quagmire, so better to leave it for now. I want you to discuss RM and physics here - I'm just saying that as far as formal publishing it would be better to get RM established in the other areas. Once it's discussed and applied and has a track record, then more rational thinkers can help you when it comes to applying it to physics in a controlled and rational way.

After all, that list of gadgets looks extremely tempting for many Scientists. I'm more interested in theory and the philosophy myself, but I'm rare. Best not to let too much get out about the gadgets or there will be a lot of shallow thinking - either it works and they start using it without thinking, or they can't get it to work and just dismiss RM as a result. Either way, not a good result.

Back to the accumulation of affectance and the formation of particles. I see a problem with your latest description of the affectance particles getting together:

But eventually when the cluster of affectance maxima gets large enough, the angle of reflection or escape from the particle has narrowed down considerably and there are very few cracks in which to add anything. What that means is that almost none of the affectance can add to what is already there because there are so few small cracks into which to settle and thus must reflect back.

To me, that description suggests there will be one type of particle only. All particle are made of affectance, and there will be one size where the size is just right as you describe. I still don't see how we get so many particles of different sizes, and the sizes are fairly consistent. I can cope with tiny differences in the sizes of electrons, for example, but I don't see the mechanism that makes electrons in general so similar in size, and so on for each particle.

We can put this discussion aside if you'd rather move onto the next steps in RM. I don't want to hold up your flow of ideas with my perceived problems.

Eugene Morrow

[Typist]

I think James is rightly concerned with theory and the lack of philosophy in how many theories like qm are constructed, and he wants that to be the focus. So he likes discussions with people like me.

Ok, no problem. He's doing a good job of discussing with you. Like I said, if you're enough for him, there's no problem and no need for a solution.

If that's the case, we might face the question of whether a theory intended for only one person is a theory worth discussing. In such a case, what difference would it make if the theory were right or wrong? I have no strong opinion here. Remember, I'm the Typist who types for love of typing so....

If it does make a difference whether the theory is right or wrong, then presumably we are talking about sharing the theory with multiple people, at which point we reach issues like defining the audience, marketing, packaging, presentation, language etc. All of these processes require an underlying clarity about what we're doing and why to be effective.

[James S Saint]

I believe James is concerned with losing control of the ideas. He has said there are military applications to his ideas, so there is a definite moral dimension.

"Control" is the wrong word. My issue is the consequences as you mentioned - influential people presuming without regard to other options.

I still recommend my suggestion: a "main" book of principles of RM, and then "subject" specific books and papers so that interested people can follow their interests. It's not so different from what you were suggesting.

I can't see discussing the issues involved without examples. It seems to me that even with examples, the concepts are difficult to communicate. And then the first question most people ask is, "but why should I care? What is in it for me?"

On the subject of publishing RM, I now have an extra suggestion: make physics the LAST subject area you cover.

Well that is only because you haven't seen the "weapons" involved concerning the other topics; economics, psychology, governance...

After all, that list of gadgets looks extremely tempting for many Scientists.

And you don't think economic or psychological "gadgets" wouldn't be tempting? ..Emmm.. think again.

Back to the accumulation of affectance and the formation of particles. I see a problem with your latest description of the affectance particles getting together:

But eventually when the cluster of affectance maxima gets large enough, the angle of reflection or escape from the particle has narrowed down considerably and there are very few cracks in which to add anything. What that means is that almost none of the affectance can add to what is already there because there are so few small cracks into which to settle and thus must reflect back.

To me, that description suggests there will be one type of particle only. All particle are made of affectance, and there will be one size where the size is just right as you describe. I still don't see how we get so many particles of different sizes, and the sizes are fairly consistent. I can cope with tiny differences in the sizes of electrons, for example, but I don't see the mechanism that makes electrons in general so similar in size, and so on for each particle.

Well, now you are talking about "types". That is what I wanted to get to next. But if there is any doubt or confusion concerning the very means by which particles form and maintain themselves, the types discussion could get pretty messy. I need to know that you are fully confident that what I am trying to describe is substantially undeniable.

So please get any questions you have cleared up, then we can get into types and sizes. There are not many stable sizes of basic particles in free space. In a dense affectance field, such as close to a black-hole, within the Sun, or during a nuclear blast, there is an extreme variety of shapes and sizes, too many to track. But they cannot remain stable even if they didn't collide into other particles with such extreme velocity.

If it does make a difference whether the theory is right or wrong, then presumably we are talking about sharing the theory with multiple people, at which point we reach issues like defining the audience, marketing, packaging, presentation, language etc. All of these processes require an underlying clarity about what we're doing and why to be effective.

One of the biggest mistakes destroying companies during the 80's was their willingness to go sell a product before it had actually been completely designed. The "product" to be sold is the ENTIRE book, not merely a theory or two. The reason for this is because of the issues mentioned concerning presumption. The final chapter seriously needs to be fully understood before any action is taken.

Seriously, think about it. If you somehow wrote a book on how to conquer the world in a very real way, wouldn't you want to make sure the reader fully understood exactly what was being said and the consequences if he screwed it up? Your life would BE one of those consequences. In my case, I am not going to be around when physics steps into the real world of power and godlike capabilities. So it isn't so much what effect I encounter, but the world is going to be in serious, very, very serious hurt when someone takes off without thinking very carefully about things always taken for granted in the past.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." - John Edward Dalberg

[Typist]

And then the first question most people ask is, "but why should I care? What is in it for me?"

Does RM provide an answer to this question?

[James S Saint]

And then the first question most people ask is, "but why should I care? What is in it for me?"

Does RM provide an answer to this question?

Emm.. I don't even know how to answer the question you just posed...

Emm..

RM provides precise understanding of what will take place concerning anything you choose to do.. along with exactly why.
A part of that is that when something takes place, you can reverse deduce exactly what must have taken place... despite what you are being told.
A big part of it involves why you will never be able to do certain things, so don't get your hopes up or go killing a lot of people in the effort to get it done, because it simply can't be done. On the other hand, if you have certain options, then there is absolutely nothing that could stop you.

RM is about the limits and opportunities. There are reasons why there are things that you can do and reasons why somethings absolutely cannot be done, no matter how big your guns are, no matter how clever you are, no matter who the fuck you think your are. "Nothing is possible until something is impossible". Note that RM begins with what is impossible, but because of those few impossible things, the possibilities become enormous (but NEVER infinite). Be thankful of the things that are impossible because without them nothing would be possible at all.

[James S Saint]

Let me remind you again;

A Contemporary Philosophy

Tethered by reality;

There is the ongoing cause of all that is (a.k.a. “The God”).
There is the order and chaos brought about by that cause (a.k.a. “The Universe”).
There is the adversary to every life (a.k.a. “The Devil/Adversary/Challenge”).
And there is you.

The rest is just noise…

_______________

Amongst all the noise there are many entities great and small, all vying for attention and ultimate influence – “God wannabes”. Some are mindless formations propagating through their circumstances. Some are forms of life, temporarily struggling to survive, not really knowing why and certainly not how, but merely presuming a purpose, need, and desire. Most all merely adding their bit to the noise

[Helandhighwater]

Every single thing you post is just shamelessly the current theory James, where you have changed terms like energy and work for affectance. This is not a hypothesis, this is someone elses theory repackaged with different nouns and verbs.

affectance
http://www.definition-of.com/affectance
affectance - The potential to affect, to have influence, or to effect change.

Which is just another way of expressing the terms work and or energy or power whichever you wish to choose. Field theory has already explained why things are affected, so you come along steal their theory and just cross out any part which says force or energy and insert affectance. That is a sham frankly.

A Contemporary Dogma

Tethered by reality;

There is the ongoing cause of all that is (a.k.a. “The God”).
There is the order and chaos brought about by that cause (a.k.a. “The Universe”).
There is the adversary to every life (a.k.a. “The Devil/Adversary/Challenge”).
And there is you.

Yeah really, religion is science.

The rest is just noise…

Was he talking about you when he wrote that?

[Typist]

One of the biggest mistakes destroying companies during the 80's was their willingness to go sell a product before it had actually been completely designed.

Ok, I get that, good analogy.

The "product" to be sold is the ENTIRE book, not merely a theory or two.

Ok, got this too, it's all or nothing, due the dangerous consequences of an incomplete understanding.

Seriously, think about it. If you somehow wrote a book on how to conquer the world in a very real way, wouldn't you want to make sure the reader fully understood exactly what was being said and the consequences if he screwed it up? Your life would BE one of those consequences.

As a test subject reader attempting to calculate the "what's in for me" equation one observation is...

Your writing is overflowing with vague references to incredible powers which are never quite explained. After awhile, the readers may weary of chasing coy proclamations around, and just give up. So instead of the above paragraph, how about a specific example of what bad thing might happen if RM is misunderstood.

In my case, I am not going to be around when physics steps into the real world of power and godlike capabilities. So it isn't so much what effect I encounter, but the world is going to be in serious, very, very serious hurt when someone takes off without thinking very carefully about things always taken for granted in the past.

Like this, coy proclamations predicting huge events, which are then left mysterious. Mystery can be a good enticement to the reader, but according to B.F. Skinner, the monkey needs to get the candy every so often, or they'll lose interest in the experiment.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." - John Edward Dalberg

A coy proclamation that RM somehow involves absolute power, and then you're gone. And then the reader is too.

[James S Saint]

One of the biggest mistakes destroying companies during the 80's was their willingness to go sell a product before it had actually been completely designed.

Ok, I get that, good analogy.

The "product" to be sold is the ENTIRE book, not merely a theory or two.

Ok, got this too, it's all or nothing, due the dangerous consequences of an incomplete understanding.

Exactly.

Seriously, think about it. If you somehow wrote a book on how to conquer the world in a very real way, wouldn't you want to make sure the reader fully understood exactly what was being said and the consequences if he screwed it up? Your life would BE one of those consequences.

As a test subject reader attempting to calculate the "what's in for me" equation one observation is...

Your writing is overflowing with vague references to incredible powers which are never quite explained. After awhile, the readers may weary of chasing coy proclamations around, and just give up. So instead of the above paragraph, how about a specific example of what bad thing might happen if RM is misunderstood.

In my case, I am not going to be around when physics steps into the real world of power and godlike capabilities. So it isn't so much what effect I encounter, but the world is going to be in serious, very, very serious hurt when someone takes off without thinking very carefully about things always taken for granted in the past.

Like this, coy proclamations predicting huge events, which are then left mysterious. Mystery can be a good enticement to the reader, but according to B.F. Skinner, the monkey needs to get the candy every so often, or they'll lose interest in the experiment.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." - John Edward Dalberg

A coy proclamation that RM somehow involves absolute power, and then you're gone. And then the reader is too.

Emm.. well I thought it would be obvious enough that if the weapons that I mentioned (before the warnings) were in the wrong hands, bad things would result. But frankly, every bad thing throughout the history of Man is merely another example. So there is no shortage of examples.

I understand that clarity of the reality of everything prior to proclamations is a necessity. The mystery that you are seeing is apparently the result of not seeing the concerns mentioned prior. That is why I keep trying to ensure that the principles are very clearly understood to be incontrovertible. You in particular are good at seeing potential loopholes in logic, thus a good scrutinizer for the rhetoric. But you seem to fear the subject-matter even though no knowledge of physics is required at this stage.

In all things, there is both hope and threat.
The hope is the fun things that can be formed by those inspired to do so.
The threat is the fun things that can be formed by those inspired to do so.

Considering we are in the midst of the physics frame of reference, what would you suggest concerning the hopes and threats?

[Helandhighwater]

Emm.. well I thought it would be obvious enough that if the weapons that I mentioned (before the warnings) were in the wrong hands, bad things would result. But frankly, every bad thing throughout the history of Man is merely another example. So there is no shortage of examples.

Have you invented an erroneous waffle gun then?

Or maybe a plagiarising robot than can pass off other peoples theories and ideas faster than the speed of thought.

understand that clarity of the reality of everything prior to proclamations is a necessity. The mystery that you are seeing is apparently the result of not seeing the concerns mentioned prior. That is why I keep trying to ensure that the principles are very clearly understood to be incontrovertible. You in particular are good at seeing potential loopholes in logic, thus a good scrutinizer for the rhetoric. But you seem to fear the subject-matter even though no knowledge of physics is required at this stage.

In all things, there is both hope and threat.
The hope is the fun things that can be formed by those inspired to do so.
The threat is the fun things that can be formed by those inspired to do so.

Pity you didn't actually think of any of it and just stole everyone elses ideas, or that post would actually mean something.

Considering we are in the midst of the physics frame of reference, what would you suggest concerning the hopes and threats?

I'd suggest you stop stealing other peoples work and passing it off as your own would be a good place to start plus going back to school and then learning what it is you are talking about, instead of just making up things about science and then avoiding answering any direct questions and just ad homing anyone who disagrees until they get bored.

Even the name you gave it already exists so you stole that too.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." - John Edward Dalberg

Absolute bullshit is absolutely bullshit.

[James S Saint]

Just as a note to the peanut gallery, I didn't invent the word "affectance". It has been used in professional psychology for quite some time and meaning the exact same thing except referring specifically to the subtle affects on infants. The infant particle is in that exact same boat. It becomes what the affectance surrounding it causes it to be. Unlike the infant child, the particle is formed from nothing but the unseen affectance and is thus the very beginning of matter and the universe of physics.

[Helandhighwater]

Just as a note to the peanut gallery, I didn't invent the word "affectance". It has been used in professional psychology for quite some time and meaning the exact same thing except referring specifically to the subtle affects on infants. The infant particle is in that exact same boat. It becomes what the affectance surrounding it causes it to be. Unlike the infant child, the particle is formed from nothing but the unseen affectance and is thus the very beginning of matter and the universe of physics.

No shit? So that's why its in the dictionary, it already existed!

You didn't invent anything anyway so the issues of semantics are entirely beside the point.

[Faust]

Fifth warning for Heland. One month ban.

[James S Saint]

Rational Metaphysics;

"From the very beginning, from the G.O.D. (Grand Original Design); every structure, every law, every order, everything of substance and force that "matters" arises from contention."

The ban that was just issued and its impetus arose from contention. But what causes the seen contention, what causes that which matters and even the substance Science calls "matter", is formed from the unseen. What was the real reason that he persisted in attacking me personally? Such mystery goes unseen yet creates the impetus of law and demand of order.

In the realm of physics, the very most fundamental particle is formed only by the contention of affectance.
In psychology, every motivation, emotion, and determination is formed from contention of perceived needs and desires.
In economics, every investment, rise, and collapse, is formed from contention within the flow of trade.
In society, every movement, war, and law is formed from contention.

One can only see the contention and after the cause of it has already passed. The true Cause all of those contentions goes unseen. The entire universe of the unseen affectance and the seen contentions that form what matters, stems from the most fundamental G.O.D. within all things.

The unseen can only be known through mind. Without mind, the unseen goes uncompensated and contention rises, demands rise, laws arise, contention builds a momentous mountain of tyranny. The Nazis were the seen "iron fist" that had a cause, unseen, except by the thoughtful.

[Typist]

James, your past post seems a good attempt at a concise overall summary. If it please you, you might take this as a starting point and continually refine it. I like the way you used specific examples to illustrate the overall principle.

Given the importance of contention in your definition, perhaps that word could receive more attention? Maybe develop a list of alternate words that would have the same meaning, and try them on for size?

[James S Saint]

James, your past post seems a good attempt at a concise overall summary. If it please you, you might take this as a starting point and continually refine it. I like the way you used specific examples to illustrate the overall principle.

Given the importance of contention in your definition, perhaps that word could receive more attention? Maybe develop a list of alternate words that would have the same meaning, and try them on for size?

My Editor comes forth.

..good thought and suggestion.
Thank you.

...of course, a wordsmith, I'm not.


With each form that arises to contain the contention, contention becomes the traffic that settles as a gradient across which the form gravitates to seek even more contention. Every nation finds a cause for war. Every man finds a task with which to struggle. And every mind seeks the cause of its contention.

[EugeneMorrow]

Everyone,

This thread was originally about an alternative to quantum mechanics (qm) called the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). TEW is published in the form of a book and a paper in a physics journal, both by Dr. Lewis E. Little. Since all alternatives to qm are welcome in this thread, we are now spending a lot of time discussing a new and unpublished theory of science, physics and everything called Rational Metaphysics (RM) developed by James S Saint. The debate is about how RM applies to physics, rather than all the other areas. Sometimes James has some personal speculations that extend RM, which we call JSSRM (James S Saint Rational Metaphysics).


Typist,

You're making great progress: I like your pickup on contention.


Faust,

What happened to the idea of three strikes and you're out?


James,

You participate in a lot of debates on this forum, and you have a lot of ideas and logic to share especially here. I think Helandhighwater is motivated by pure envy - nothing more complex than that. Once he gets his head around his own problem, he night be able to say something more worthy of discussion.

The concept of weapons in psychology and economics is pretty mind blowing to me. I am even more motivated to find out more about those areas of RM.

In the area of RM and physics, I am very surprised you are waiting for me to be convinced about particles forming from affectance. You have described a process that seems similar to Brownian motion or perhaps motion of particles in a gas. That is a random process. Then somehow particles form in various shapes and sizes that are quite definite. I don't see how the order emerges out of a random process - the sizes seem arbitrary because all particles are made of the same stuff.

Far from being convinced, I think of this as a big weakness in RM in the area of physics. RM is attempting something no other theory has done - describe just what particles are. It's great that someone has finally taken this on this challenge. Unfortunately, I am not finding a compelling description about particles forming yet at all.

I have another criticism of RM in the area of physics. RM for physics seems to be incomplete. You have mentioned lots of things that RM covers - gravity and charge and magnetism for example, but there are physical realities that are missing. I'm referring to the wave behavior of matter. This means the double slit experiment, and cavity emission for example. Particles appear to behave like waves, even when only one particle is involved.

For qm, there is a quantum wave going in the same direction as the particle, and the particle is often interpreted as being both a wave and a particle at the same time. For TEW, the wave goes in the opposite direction to the particle, and a particle is always following an elementary wave in this way. In TEW, the particle and the elementary wave are physically separate and different objects. So both qm and TEW have a quantum wave as a central part of their theory, but the direction and relationship to the particle are completely different.

I see no quantum wave in RM. This is something that could be added in, or perhaps we haven't got there yet. Without it, RM is open to the accusation of being a "classical" theory of physics.

What I'm saying is that when you're solving this challenge of what a particle is, you need to have a way that particles can behave like waves too - there has to be a quantum wave in there somewhere. Looks like the particle is made up of smaller particles of affectance, so the wave will be something separate. That's fine - more like the TEW view. I remain hopeful that there could be overlap between TEW and RM, albeit with a bit of debate.

Eugene Morrow

[James S Saint]

In the area of RM and physics, I am very surprised you are waiting for me to be convinced about particles forming from affectance. You have described a process that seems similar to Brownian motion or perhaps motion of particles in a gas. That is a random process. Then somehow particles form in various shapes and sizes that are quite definite. I don't see how the order emerges out of a random process - the sizes seem arbitrary because all particles are made of the same stuff.

Far from being convinced, I think of this as a big weakness in RM in the area of physics. RM is attempting something no other theory has done - describe just what particles are. It's great that someone has finally taken this on this challenge. Unfortunately, I am not finding a compelling description about particles forming yet at all.

Sigh... I was suspecting that..

In learning mathematics, if you don't catch on concerning the very beginning concepts and the teacher proceeds anyway, you will be stuck for the rest of your life in confusion about math.

What I have mentioned thus far about RM is not an issue of some imagined vague theory. It is an absolutely unavoidable conclusion. Thus it seems that I need to go back to the beginning and clarify each point of the reasoning and see where the problem lies.

1.) Do you understand that existence is defined by the property of affect?
2.) Do you understand that infinite homogeneity is logically impossible?
3.) Do you understand that if there is going to be affect, there must be a potential for such affect?
4.) Do you understand that due to the above, in all places, the potential for affect cannot be infinitely identical?
5.) Do you understand that because the potential for affect is not identical, anywhere, affect must take place between the potentials?
6.) Do you understand that because affect is happening between potentials, waves of affect propagate randomly in both direction and magnitude?
7.) Do you understand that when propagating waves of affect collide, they add?
8.) Do you understand that when affects add, they necessarily have a maximum rate of adding?
9.) Do you understand that due to that maximum rate of adding affects, any additional propagating affect that comes along must wait for a bit?
10) Do you understand that by the waiting causing more waiting, a slowness in propagation in the general area forms?

Which is the first of those that you cannot be very confident about?

And Typist, is there anything dubious about any of that to You?

I have another criticism of RM in the area of physics. RM for physics seems to be incomplete. You have mentioned lots of things that RM covers - gravity and charge and magnetism for example, but there are physical realities that are missing. I'm referring to the wave behavior of matter. This means the double slit experiment, and cavity emission for example. Particles appear to behave like waves, even when only one particle is involved.

For qm, there is a quantum wave going in the same direction as the particle, and the particle is often interpreted as being both a wave and a particle at the same time. For TEW, the wave goes in the opposite direction to the particle, and a particle is always following an elementary wave in this way. In TEW, the particle and the elementary wave are physically separate and different objects. So both qm and TEW have a quantum wave as a central part of their theory, but the direction and relationship to the particle are completely different.

I see no quantum wave in RM. This is something that could be added in, or perhaps we haven't got there yet. Without it, RM is open to the accusation of being a "classical" theory of physics.

What I'm saying is that when you're solving this challenge of what a particle is, you need to have a way that particles can behave like waves too - there has to be a quantum wave in there somewhere. Looks like the particle is made up of smaller particles of affectance, so the wave will be something separate. That's fine - more like the TEW view. I remain hopeful that there could be overlap between TEW and RM, albeit with a bit of debate.

Eugene Morrow

We can get to all of that if we can get passed the basics.

[EugeneMorrow]

Everyone,

This thread was originally about an alternative to quantum mechanics (qm) called the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). TEW is published in the form of a book and a paper in a physics journal, both by Dr. Lewis E. Little. Since all alternatives to qm are welcome in this thread, we are now spending a lot of time discussing a new and unpublished theory of science, physics and everything called Rational Metaphysics (RM) developed by James S Saint. The debate is about how RM applies to physics, rather than all the other areas. Sometimes James has some personal speculations that extend RM, which we call JSSRM (James S Saint Rational Metaphysics).

James,

You gave a really good summary of the reasoning, and it will help us sort this out.

Question: is affectance made of particles or waves (or both)? In point 6 we have

waves of affect propagate randomly in both direction and magnitude

In recent posts on particles forming, we have particles of affectance accumulating.

To me, particles and waves are completely different things. We know that qm likes to treat them as the same, but in TEW waves and particles are physically separate physical realities. I need this one clarified before I can really get clear on the reasoning points.

Eugene Morrow

[Amorphos]

James

Unlike the infant child, the particle is formed from nothing but the unseen affectance and is thus the very beginning of matter and the universe of physics.

So affectance is already there prior to the particle? I thought it was the affect of other particles upon a given particle. …or what I would call collocative information.

What have I misunderstood?

[James S Saint]

You gave a really good summary of the reasoning, and it will help us sort this out.

Emm.. so why didn't you answer the question?

Question: is affectance made of particles or waves (or both)? In point 6 we have

waves of affect propagate randomly in both direction and magnitude

In recent posts on particles forming, we have particles of affectance accumulating.

Well, I thought we were passed how particles formed in the first place, so I imagine things seem a bit confusing now.
Notice in that list of reasoning steps, there are no particles mentioned. Everything, as indicated by those first pics, is merely an issue of randomly distributed, valued, and directed waves of affectance noise, having no particular frequency.

So to begin with, we are talking strictly about affectance NOISE... no particles involved.
But shortly, we see how a tight grouping of that noise must come about and that forms our first affectance "particle". The particle is made of nothing but the noise very tightly snuggled together.

Perhaps the confusion comes in when we realize that even though there is this very tight clump of noise called a particle, surrounding the particle, the affectance still slows due to reflecting effects off of the tight particle. So a gradually fading field of affectance density forms around the particle.. the very same kind of field that created the particle in the first place, merely much weaker or "less dense".

Later we find that such a field causes the migration of particles toward each other and that is what Newton happened to have called "Gravity".

To me, particles and waves are completely different things. We know that qm likes to treat them as the same, but in TEW waves and particles are physically separate physical realities. I need this one clarified before I can really get clear on the reasoning points.

Forget QM. QM is based on a fundamentally flawed presumption that will become evident later (if we can get passed these fundamental thoughts). A particle primarily involves a clump of noise. A clump of noise WILL have some frequency components, but they will seldom be stable or continuous. The notion that QM proposes concerning the "wave" of a particle, is pure blind guessing while trying to come up with an ontology to explain everything. QM is built upon pure literal superstition masked with mathematics.

Now I still need to know the answer to that question, "Which, if any, of those listed reasonings is the first that you have the slightest doubt about?"

James

Unlike the infant child, the particle is formed from nothing but the unseen affectance and is thus the very beginning of matter and the universe of physics.

So affectance is already there prior to the particle? I thought it was the affect of other particles upon a given particle. …or what I would call collocative information.

What have I misunderstood?

Well, you understand it in terms of how Newton first noticed things, in the form of mass attracting mass. But what I am explaining is WHY mass attracts mass in the first place.

When it comes to "what came first, the chicken or the egg?", I have to say that neither came first in time. They have in this case, always existed and that can be deduced merely from that list of 10 reasoning items.

The affectance field becoming very dense creates a particle. But that particle causes a dense field to surround it. That gradually decreasing dense field causes particles to accumulate. And that accumulation does, guess what?... it causes a denser affectance field. If that field is high enough, additional particles will form.

Later, if we ever get there, we will see why that affectance field very seldom actually becomes so dense that it could cause more particles to form. Basically it is because of the formation of positive and negative types of particles that do not simply annihilate each other, but instead hang around each other eternally - Atoms.

[Amorphos]

James, thanks

I have to say that neither came first in time. They have in this case, always existed

I can only think of that in terms of information [maybe mind] rather than physical mass with no beginning.

The affectance field becoming very dense creates a particle. But that particle causes a dense field to surround it. That gradually decreasing dense field causes particles to accumulate. And that accumulation does, guess what?... it causes a denser affectance field. If that field is high enough, additional particles will form.

Ok. Something is making ‘the affectance field become very dense creating a particles’, no? what is the affectance field? The rest of what you said seems to follow once we get there.

Later, if we ever get there, we will see why that affectance field very seldom actually becomes so dense that it could cause more particles to form. Basically it is because of the formation of positive and negative types of particles that do not simply annihilate each other, but instead hang around each other eternally - Atoms

So a limit is arrived at where a balance is formed and we don’t go beyond that ~ hence the universe being limited/conserved ~ I assume.


.

[James S Saint]

James, thanks

I have to say that neither came first in time. They have in this case, always existed

I can only think of that in terms of information [maybe mind] rather than physical mass with no beginning.

How does information theory express a "clump of random noise" of a given size with merely a maximum frequency involved (just at the top of the gamma frequency)?

The affectance field becoming very dense creates a particle. But that particle causes a dense field to surround it. That gradually decreasing dense field causes particles to accumulate. And that accumulation does, guess what?... it causes a denser affectance field. If that field is high enough, additional particles will form.

Ok. Something is making ‘the affectance field become very dense creating a particles’, no? what is the affectance field? The rest of what you said seems to follow once we get there.

Well, there are two places in this thread that explain that. You might want to begin with either First Intro or Intro Recap.

Basically what is explained is that affects distributed in a Gaussian type fashion through 3D space requires that they begin to affect each other. Due to the random nature of their distribution, a field of "affectance noise" is formed (and has always existed as it could never be avoided). But because there is a maximum value when affects add to each other, inertia is created when they come to a maximum and can no longer simply pass through each other. That point of inertia causes affects to both backup and accumulate. And that is what causes the particle to begin to form - as a "clump of noise".

What limits the size of that clump from merely increasing its size endlessly involves an "entropic shell effect" brought about by the eventual smoothing of the surface of the clump so much that like sound waves off of a smooth wall, the affectance reflects away more than accumulates. That in turn causes a surrounding field of congestion known as the "gravity field" because of its affects upon other particles that are doing that same thing (explained during the Intro).

Later, if we ever get there, we will see why that affectance field very seldom actually becomes so dense that it could cause more particles to form. Basically it is because of the formation of positive and negative types of particles that do not simply annihilate each other, but instead hang around each other eternally - Atoms

So a limit is arrived at where a balance is formed and we don’t go beyond that ~ hence the universe being limited/conserved ~ I assume..

Emm.. limited in which sense?

Particle size is limited. The total affect potential in any one region is limited. But the dimensions of the total universe cannot be limited. It is my speculation that out far enough, very, very far away from our "local universe", there are other "local universes" similar to ours but merely at different stages. At this time, I can neither confirm nor deny the big bang theory other than to say that if it occurred, it was merely one incident from an endless and uncountable number of prior and distant others, a single drop of rain upon the ocean. But there is good reason and evidence that such an occurrence never actually happened.

In any case, the total information available throughout the total universe, is totally immeasurable for a variety of reasons.

[EugeneMorrow]

Everyone,

This thread was originally about an alternative to quantum mechanics (qm) called the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). TEW is published in the form of a book and a paper in a physics journal, both by Dr. Lewis E. Little. Since all alternatives to qm are welcome in this thread, we are now spending a lot of time discussing a new and unpublished theory of science, physics and everything called Rational Metaphysics (RM) developed by James S Saint. The debate is about how RM applies to physics, rather than all the other areas. Sometimes James has some personal speculations that extend RM, which we call JSSRM (James S Saint Rational Metaphysics).

Amorphos,

Welcome to my thread. The perspective of Information theory is most welcome.


James,

We are finally getting to the bits about RM in physics that bother me.

I am concerned there are assumptions creeping into RM, and that has undermined your logic process. Which bits of the logic are a problem for me?

I see tension between 1, 6 and 7.

1.) Do you understand that existence is defined by the property of affect?

This is the idea that everything is made of affectance. As you've said before, particles are made up of tiny particles of affectance.

6.) Do you understand that because affect is happening between potentials, waves of affect propagate randomly in both direction and magnitude?
7.) Do you understand that when propagating waves of affect collide, they add?

These two points talk about affectance being a wave.

I see RM as claiming that affectance is both a particle and a wave, which I do not accept. When is affectance a particle and when is it a wave? If it's a wave, is it a wave in a medium?

Eugene Morrow

[James S Saint]

I am concerned there are assumptions creeping into RM, and that has undermined your logic process. Which bits of the logic are a problem for me?

I see tension between 1, 6 and 7.

1.) Do you understand that existence is defined by the property of affect?

This is the idea that everything is made of affectance. As you've said before, particles are made up of tiny particles of affectance.

6.) Do you understand that because affect is happening between potentials, waves of affect propagate randomly in both direction and magnitude?
7.) Do you understand that when propagating waves of affect collide, they add?

These two points talk about affectance being a wave.

I see RM as claiming that affectance is both a particle and a wave, which I do not accept. When is affectance a particle and when is it a wave? If it's a wave, is it a wave in a medium?

Eugene Morrow

Whoa!! Slow down. I never said anything about affectance being "particles".
I said that particles are made of affectance, not that affectance is made of particles.

By "bits of", I merely meant "small portions of", not "particles of".