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 Since all alternatives to qm are welcome in this thread, we are now spending a lot of time discussing a new and unpublished theory of science, physics and everything called Rational Metaphysics (RM) developed by James S Saint.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).
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.
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.