My reasoning [proof] stating why the notion of affectance is false, is on my first post here…
Then so what was there instead
The physical universe is as eternal as its cause. It never began and it will never end.
Sure, because values aren’t limits eh!
and background radiation doesn’t exist, there is no expansion bla bla.
An infinite amount of stars would yield an infinite amount of light, and not the finite amount of light/energy there exists in the universe.
Not true at all. Light from that distance has gone through so much spatial affectance that it is no longer in the form of photons. It is too dispersed. And the CMB is merely the universe’s resonance.
As far as the red-shift confusion:
there is not a neccaserily infinite amount of affectance. infinite is not the same as eternal. eternal means somehing that will always exist in some way or another, it does not indicate what mount of substance. so u sir r using a fallacy.
Not you too! Affectance doesn’t mean anything. If there were not an infinite amount of ‘affectance’ or objects giving effect, then their effect or affect if we must, would then have to have infinite value. Somehow it has to get to being infinite.
Infinity will always exist = is eternal, because it does always exist; logically, where there is an existence it is in the infinite space, and therefore infinite perpetuates wherever existence does.
On the contrary, affectance means everything … literally everything … or at least everything that has affect.
You value argument is a bit meaningless, but irrelevant. There is more than an infinite amount of affectance.
Trixie suggested there may not be an infinite amount of affectance ~ hence my answer pertained to that.
So all particles then, ~ which leaves nothing being affected. affectance means nothing unless you state what and how particles are affecting without potentiality [from a previous effect]. How can affectance also be relative ~ where observing particles interact and change one another’s values respectively. Where all particles have undetermined spatial locations, can exist or be in meta-position, in two or more places at once and can be entangles throughout the universe?
particles aren’t ‘born’ or do not arise alone, with an energy value, they all exist relative to one another and it is that relationship that their respective values manifest.
Trixie said, “not necessarily”. I didn’t go through why it is that affectance is actually more than an infinite ocean.
That was already explained in that OP.
The most fundamental thing being affected is the affecting itself.
Try to get your head around that one first.
…just a lot of Quantum Magi excuse making BS. Particles never did anything merely because they were observed. You are letting their slight of words mislead you.
You are caught up in Quantum Mysticism, not science.
Your logic doesnt make any sense. You are litterally saying that if a finite object gives an effect, it would have to have infinite value. Nothing about your statement makes any sense.
This concept actually proves me right. What Im saying is consciousness only arises in the affectance field. It makes xyz coordinates a mute point. All points of consciousness in space become local immediately and out of bounds if there is no affectance. It doesnt matter if affectance/aether has infinite bounds or finite bounds because consciousness will only arise inside the bounds, therefore its actual xyz coordinates become irrelevant and a moot concept.
James has said before that aether/affectance has an infinitesmal density. I am not talking about the density but its actual maximum bounds. Its maximum bounds may or may not be infinite.
As it turns out, affectance can never achieve infinite density. But the universe has more than an infinite amount of it infinitely dispersed.
So, if it doesnt have infinite density, that means that if we freeze a frame, say at 1 picosecond, if we zoom in enough we should find gaps?
Therefore, there is a something which affectance isn’t, true nothingness? Or is the nothing something too?
As for your claims that there is an infinite amount of affectance in the universe, are you saying that the universe has an infinite spanning xyz boundary space?
You would “see” gaps between the MCR (Maximum Change Rate) points. For something to change at a maximum rate (thus most dense), it must be changing from something, which means that everything can’t be at the maximum rate.
No. It is merely slower affecting vs the fastest possible affecting. The fastest possible affecting, the points of MCR, are immutably hard. They are what causes particles to have inertia. But they are merely points, millions of them, that last for only an extremely brief instant before fading as others rise.
Certainly. The universe has to boundary. The universe has infA^6 location points, “xyz” (using the real number system as opposed to integers).
Perhaps my wording was unclear. By density I mean something which is not 100 percent dense means it has a few globs in space where there is no affectance at all. Therefore, a 100 percent dense object would be the opposite.
Also, consider 3x3 cubes. If I move a row cubes, there is change yet no gaps and density remains the same in the middle row.
I dont know what infa^6 points means. I thought I disproved that silly notion in your other thread.
There is never any space without affectance. Space IS affectance (as is all existence).
You have never disproven anything that I have ever said.
infA ≡ infinity of the specific type [1+1+1+…+1]
infA^6 ≡ infA raised to the 6th power.
Euclidean space seems like a fallacy when discussing infinite.
Infinite has two dimensions. Either it is infinite or it isnt. Either it is boundless in both directions or it has a starting point but no ending point.
You cant power xyz into it, they are meaningless because the word infinite only has two meanings, boundless in both directions or only one. Or a 3rd meaning, meaning boundless space.
How can you say that space is affectance? The space around earth is affectance, but space outside of the universe might just be empty.
How can we tell if space is empty or aetherspace? If objects cannot move in it or light cannot propogate from it. This is tricky because solid objects do the same.
You guys should rename affectance as ‘avoidance theory’. :-" There’s more turns here than a spirally serpenty thing.
If you are happy to live in your bubble and don’t actually answer points, and wont accept science, so be it. It would be courteous of you to keep your theory off threads which don’t pertain to it. Or if you think they do, then answer points and have a relevant debate. less is not philosophy but dictum.
I don’t see how that is related to anything said.
“Space outside the universe”???
How can there be space outside the universe? Where ever there is space, that is where the universe is.
And we can tell that space isn’t empty because of the proof that homogeneity is impossible.
You are the one who brought up affectance. We were talking about things being infinite or not (as your OP suggests).
…even though your reasoning made no impact at all.
I answer whatever issues you raise concerning Affectance. You don’t appear to actually read them, but I do my part.
And as far as being philosophy and not “dictum”, aren’t you the one dictating that your fanciful imaginings of what science has proven is the real truth and not what any philosopher claims? I can prove what I am saying (to rational people anyway). You seem quite often to just be stringing words together. Is that your idea of what “string theory” meant?
Affectance exists in all space because without it, there would have to be infinite homogeneity, which is impossible. That means that all space is filled with something, which we can easily verify concerning all of the space we can see or detect (the light goes everywhere).
Your idea of an “infinite curve” or the lack of infinitely long straight, is merely wishful irrationalism and fallacious reasoning.
Aether is a substance. It is fallacious to say that there is no space that doesnt have aether in it.
It is probably gradient like, the aether slowly fades out into “space” (empty space) and becomes less and less dense. Eventually, the aether density approaches zero…at that point you will find spaces which have empty spaces where the aether did not reach. Light will not go through empty spaces. Depending on the size of the gradient, you will eventually reach true empty space, space without aether.