Gravity (traditional ideas, and RM)

Ok, here goes.

Gravity is an “attractive” “force” between bodies, and the strength of the attraction is proportional to the mass of the bodies. The reason for this attraction is not understood in traditional physics, but various ideas range from Einstein’s “fabric of space-time” idea (which is more like a description rather than an explanation) to “gravitons”, supposed elementary particles. Other physicists admit they don’t know what gravity is, and assume it will be figured out later, perhaps through continued development of quantum physics.

I don’t know enough about the traditional ideas for gravity in physics, so if anyone else can comment on this I would appreciate it. We can note that gravity and force of acceleration behave the same, and are indistinguishable from one another in the right circumstances (as Einstein said).

James’ RM explains gravity by the fact that every body is emitting affectance, elementary “wavelets” that are absorbed into other bodies. When affectance is absorbed into a body it slightly shifts that body’s center of mass, being that now an additional little bit of mass has been added to one side (the side where the affects were received). Think of it like a ball on a table: the ball is stationary and not moving, but if suddenly a little bit of mass was added to one side of the ball it would roll slightly in that direction. Likewise, to use Earth and the Sun as an example each object is emitting affectance, and some of this is absorbed by the other body. This means that the points on each body that are oriented toward the other are receiving more affectance than those points on each body which are oriented away from the other, therefore these points facing the other body will gather more increase in mass and thus tend to “move” in that direction (move toward the other body).

If bodies are emitting and absorbing affectance in a more or less unchanging ratio of the one to the other (so as to keep the overall mass of the object largely unchanged), we can assume that affectance is emitted from all sides of the object equally, at least so far in my understanding of RM I can see no reason why the emitting of affectance would be unequal across the surface of a body. However, the side of a body (Earth) facing another nearby body (the Sun) would be receiving larger amounts of affectance than other sides of that body. Given that bodies like to maintain the same amount of mass (it is my understanding that this is a basic claim of RM, I may be wrong about that?), more affectance will be released in proportion to the amount of affectance gained through absorption. Is this increased affectance emitted at a particular location on the body, with respect to the side of the body receiving affectance from the other body?

If affectance continues to be emitted by Earth equally across all of Earth’s surfaces, only a very small portion of this would be absorbed by the Sun. So: Earth can receive X increase in affectance from the Sun, and Earth will emit an equal X amount of affectance in compensation so that Earth’s overall mass remains the same. However, an amount very much smaller than X of that affectance emitted thusly will get back to the Sun (most of it will be sent out into distant space). However, the closer two objects are the more available surface area exists for those two objects to interact via the exchange of affectance. Therefore as bodies comes closer the amount of affectance absorbed from the other (and thus also the amount of affectance emitted in compensation for this new increase of mass) increases, leading to an increased extent of change in center of mass of each object (a greater change across the same unit of time). This translates into velocity increase of motion the closer two objects are to each other.

Additionally, it must be noted that objects do not always “meet” as a consequence of gravity. For instance, a comet will get close to Earth, “wanting” to get to the Earth, but will shoot around and then away from Earth instead. This demonstrates that the power of gravity is finite, and can be overcome by an opposed power, in the case of the comet that power is the inertia of the comet. If inertia is high enough an object will shoot around rather than into another object, and then move away rather than back, because the attractive tendency of the two object’s gravity is less than the force of inertia of the object moving away. Of course gravity is still “pulling on” the comet, thus as it moves away from Earth its velocity is slowing down. Logically, given no other factors, the comet would eventually reach a point distant from Earth where its velocity would reach zero and then slowly begin to reverse, as minute affectance from distant Earth began to shift its center of mass slightly and now there is no inertia with which the comet might compensate for this fact.

One more thing: given this theory, gravity must “travel” (propagate) at the speed at which affectance travels. Affectance in “vacuum” of space travels at MCR, as far as I understand RM, therefore gravity would also travel at MCR. This would also be the speed at which massless particles travel, for example photons. Thus gravity should propagate at c in a vacuum and then “slow down” when propagating through a medium, just as is the case with the observed speed of light.

Another question is: how does the emitted and absorbed affect manifest/look like, with respect to particles within these bodies? I can see options where either there is no discernible change in the particles/structure of objects as affectance passes into and out of those objects, being that it is perhaps below the threshold of ability to form or contribute to the formation of measurable particles; or, I can see that this affectance must “come from” that particle-mass which is the object itself, thus there should be able to be detected certain differences and changes in particles occurring at the surface of objects which is not detected in particles occurring below the surface of objects.

The wording in that bothers me a bit.

A sub-atomic particle is merely a location in space where ultra, ultra small random EMR noise (“Affectance”) has gathered into a self-sustaining concentration, a “mass of noise”. The particle isn’t exactly “emitting”, as in spawning, the noise. It is more correct to say that the noise is spawning a particle, a concentration.

The gravity or mass field that surrounds such particles doesn’t “come from” the particle. The particle is formed by the field as it inadvertently concentrates at a location, what we call the “center of the particle”. A particle is merely a traffic jam of noise. It does not create the traffic jam but is a consequence of the congestion.

That concentration occurs due to the unavoidable fact that each tiny bit of noise affects each other such as to slow the propagation of the noise as well as reduce its wavelength. When the level of noise is high enough, a peak concentration occurs that becomes the center of the highest delays and is self-sustaining. The level of surrounding noise can drop down extremely low without that peak concentration dissolving. If the ambient noise could actually reach to a zero level, the concentration would gradually dissipate. And in extreme deep space (between the galaxies) that might be occurring. It might not be possible for particulate matter to travel from one galaxy to another.

The point is that gravitational migration of such concentrations of noise is not brought about by the concentrations, but rather by the fields of noise having a gradient that increases toward that center of concentration (Einstein’s “gravity well”). The centers of concentration gradually migrate closer merely because between the two of them, the field is more dense. Again, the concentration doesn’t make the field more dense. The field being dense, forms the concentration. And because the field is slightly more dense between the centers, the centers of concentration shift or migrate closer.

There is no pushing or pulling involved in gravitational migration. The noise is always coming and going and getting delayed by other noise. A particle is merely the consequence of so much delay in a region that an immutable traffic jam of noise refuses to dissipate. But where the center of the traffic jam is located depends upon the amount of traffic surrounding it. Between two centers, there is more traffic and thus the centers gradually drift toward that higher traffic region and thus toward each other, neither being aware that there is another particle at a distance.

But be careful to not equate a large molecular body with a large particle. Each sub-atomic particle behaves as described, but an atom is formed of those particles with a considerable distance between them. That space between those particles is also filled with noise, but not a self-sustaining concentration. And again, the atom does not “emit noise” or “gravitation influence”. The atom is the result of concentrations of noise that is already there.

Of course a planet is no more than an uncountable number of such particles. But keep in mind that every single one of those particles is being formed by the surrounding affectance noise. The “gravity field” is constantly and literally recreating the planet instant by instant. The planet is not creating the gravity field. The planet or any particle within the planet cannot “move” at all until its ambient affectance field increases or decreases more on one side than the other. Although once motion is established, any particle will continue that motion without need of outside influence, just as Robert Hooke described long ago (predecessor to Newton).

Alright, that helps a lot.

This, “Again, the concentration doesn’t make the field more dense. The field being dense, forms the concentration. And because the field is slightly more dense between the centers, the centers of concentration shift or migrate closer”… why is the field slightly more dense between the centers?

Well, that’s a bit like asking why there is noise within the particle… because that is where the noise happened to be. The particle didn’t create that noise there. The particle is merely where ever the noise gathers.

And I could equally ask of you, “Why weren’t the particles already at the field center?” Because that isn’t where the field was strong enough to form the particles. But concentrations of noise tend to maintain themselves and the field all around a particle is merely a lesser concentration than the portion that we call “the particle”.

If you shift a concentration of noise closer to another, the additional noise coming into the region will build a higher concentration within that region. So that “field center” could have been very low affectance before you shifted the concentration into it. After it arrives, the noise within the particle creates more noise all around the particle. The traffic jam spreads.

You have mentioned a relation between the speed of affect and the speed of a traveling “gravity wave”, but those are very different things. If you were to open a bottle of perfume at room temperature, the molecules leaving the bottle might have a mean velocity of perhaps 400 m/s. But does that mean that the first molecule will reach across the room at that velocity? Not hardly.

The molecule must bounce off of a great many other air molecules somewhat randomly before it gets to the other side of the room. So its travel velocity through the air is far less than the mean molecular velocity. The same can be said of a “wave of noise”. The wave of noise is a random confusion of noise being created and dispersed as the wave (higher concentration) travels. The affects (those “wavelets”) that makes up that wave have linear velocities far greater than the speed with which a wave of noise can be sequentially created so as to propagate.

So when you move an object closer to another object, the affectance field requires more time than merely the speed of affect would directly imply. The affects must create random noise in order for a field of noise to build up and that takes much long than a traveling EMR. So the other object would not experience additional noise within the speed of light, and certainly not the full strength of it.

I’m trying to imagine a computer simulation being run on this, and it makes sense to me. A vastness of noise, with various concentrations of noise accumulating in certain locations. As you say, the traffic jam spreads, and every concentration of noise will seem to spread out all around it, to form more concentrations but of lesser density than the primary one. Eventually the areas between noise concentrations will “fill up” with more traffic jams (more noise) because that is what logically happens in such a situation. The “gravity” is only the fact that noise concentrations will migrate toward each other as noise builds up more from one direction than another, that one direction being toward which other concentrations of noise are located.

So from the perspective of science measuring matter, or from our unscientific perceptions, the particles of matter appear to attract each other, but this attraction is “weaker” than other forces like EM, nuclear forces and often mechanical forces of matter’s own momentum. This is because gravity is not a force and is only a “tendency to migrate” that is inherent to reality itself. Those particulate matter that we observe will attain its own properties like momentum, EM or nuclear “force” that are able to overcome the tendency of migration, thus slowing or stopping the migrations of noise given these other factors.

And I assume RM can explain EM and strong/weak forces. But yeah, we aren’t there yet.

That was a good way to put that.

Although do realize that just like the “gravitational force”, all of the other “forces” are also merely aberrant consequences of the same Affectance, just as already defined. Affectance is truly the only physical existence, the one field that yields many effects that appear as many objects and fields with interesting interactive behaviors… some even conscious.

But-of-course.

Closer that you think.

Since you seemed to have grasped the “concentration of noise” concept of a particle, now imagine what happens when two centers get so close that the primary concentration from each actually overlaps, “particles touching”. Since the only way to separate either particle is to give it affectance in a direction away from the other particle and they are already sharing a great deal of their noise so very close, how is that going to happen? How is anything going to get between them that isn’t already there being passed back and forth? And if you give affects directed off to one side so as to attempt to knock one off from the other, how are you going to deliver such affects so strongly that the other particle wouldn’t just follow along?

But perhaps more importantly in sub-atomic physics is the fact that each of those particles constitutes quite an extraordinary amount of concentrated, compressed noise, “energy”. And when they are sharing each other’s space, there is a lot of energy represented in that tiny space between the centers, energy that must be dealt with if it is to be divided up and separated into two individual concentrations. Strong noise must be redistributed in favored directions. It would require a reverse, very “Strong Force”.

And it all starts like this;

What keeps two particles (concentrations of noise) that are drawn very close to each other from merging into one particle?

Perhaps as the “force” (amount of noise) between each particle is increasing as the particles get closer, a threshold is reached where this middle area becomes almost like a third particle, a “very compressed concentration of a lot of noise”; this would effectively “bind” the two particles together because it would be a bridge across which their respective affectances are shared and continue to draw toward each other (continue to migrate their centers), but it would ALSO act like a barrier preventing the two particles from fully merging, because a certain point is reached where the compressed center-noise is too dense and can no longer move or compress any further… it cannot effectively merge with either particle, but it acts like a very strong glue keeping the particles very close together.

Also, what’s up with dark matter? 95% of the galaxy is composed of matter we cannot detect? And we know this only because galactic spirals “should” move differently than they do? Yeah…

What does RM say about the problem of the galaxy rotation curve? I assume the RM account of gravity (or of mass) can account for the observation that stars and gas rotate around the galactic center at roughly the same speed regardless of their distance from this center, whereas they “should” rotate slower the further away from this center they are.

Not entirely sure, but I think dark matter (or more accurately dark attraction) is resolved by RM in that where normal physics assumes that every bit of gravity can be accounted for by particles, in RM there are fields of lesser and greater ambient, and the path up to a particle is really a spectrum of density.

So I assume that in these galaxies that act in accordance with more gravitation than what we can perceive of their mass, there is a lot of ‘non-materialized’’ affectance whirling around.

That inter-concentration is the “dark-matter” (“dark-energy”) that you mention in your next post, loosely associated high density affectance, not reaching the MAD and thus not becoming an actual particle. The affectance becomes thick, but not capable of supporting a maximized center because the lack of distinction from one point to another across that region keeps it chaotic, detracting from any would-be supreme center point. It has no focus.

It is just that it is too spread out and thus can’t establish a central “god-head”. It is much like two cities that happen to be very close. As they grow, a metropolis gets formed between and around them much larger than merely the sum of the two independent cities. But in the center between them, there is no city council or singular devotion even though there is more than enough activity to have one, thus no focus of funds. In economics, this is an issue of too many independently wealthy people, which is why the US demands a dependency that allows for concentrated funds and power. Once established, it becomes just like a particle and is extremely difficult to break it up again.

Physically, it is really a matter of geometry, efficiency (heat/energy/noise/affectance loss), and the mechanism of concentration. But by analogy, it is the issue of two independent supreme god-heads being strongly established and thus preventing any focus upon a third. In US politics, it is literally the Republicans and Democrats sucking up all of the media attention preventing a third party, Libertarian, from ever getting the focus of the popular vote. If there was merely one party, it could not support as high a degree of activity (socio-economics) in the nation and the nation would literally be less wealthy/powerful. Concentrating power only helps up to a certain point.

Physically, every established concentration center, particle, is gaining and losing affectance at a balanced rate. The size of the particle settles at that balance point because if it got larger in diameter, it would be losing more than gaining. Governments have the same problem. A dictatorship is limited by the number of people within his reach of authority. If the population grows beyond his ability to maintain authority, the dictatorship breaks up. That principle has been used a great deal to bring down dictators. Maximum population is a serious issue for concentrated power (“God-wannabes”). In the case of sub-atomic particles, “population” translates to “size and geometry” as it relates to “heat-loss” (Affectance and “heat” are really the same thing on the sub-atomic scale).

A polyparticle, formed from monoparticles, is much, much larger than the sum of its would-be monoparticles in mass and volume (as in over 1000 times). In physics, they refer to that extra mass and energy in terms of additional “particles” called “gluons” even though it isn’t really a particle at all, but does act like a glue. If the concentration centers were to merge, the spherical geometry could no longer support the amount of affectance being held/delayed and the gathering would breakup and disperse back down to being merely a normal monoparticle (ultra-serious “nuclear radiation”). Thus there is a multi-dome like geometry that balances in incoming and outgoing affectance toward each concentration center (usually 3 called “quarks”). And those centers are maintained separate, any closer and they lose affectance. Banks in a community have the same scenario, too close to each other and they lose trade traffic (well, until everything went electronic).

And I should mention that the term “polyparticle” also refers to the entire nucleus of atoms, as a single particle. A nucleus isn’t really merely discreet protons and neutrons glued together. The number of centers within the polyparticle is the number of discreet particles that will form if the nucleus ever breaks up.

Much like the Stopped Clock paradox, “they” seem to misunderstand Affectance fields. I know far, far more about the sub-atomic universe than the astronomic universe, but an affectance field is an affectance field. And I have to assume what they are now attributing to “dark-matter” is merely a certainly expected higher density affectance field due to all of the mass concentrations keeping it in the region.

I would expect a spinning black hole (btw, all particles spin) to be surrounded by a spinning affectance field. And frankly, every tiny particle has that as well. That spin of the field would keep galaxies relatively flat, as they seem to be. But it also affects the speed of surrounding objects like stars and planets. The gravity well concept isn’t the primary cause of the spiraling although plays its part. The “gravity field” itself is spinning even without any concerns of gravitation migration causing a well-spiral.

It is much like a boat in the water near a whirl pool. Most of the motion of the boat is due to the motion of the water, not the attraction toward the center. And also like that whirl pool, there is a size limit outside of which, objects leave the scene rather than spin around the center (this also plays into the size and shape issues of particles).

Realize that the affectance field surrounding the Earth is spinning with the Earth but less and less so with the distance from Earth. Gravitational migration is due to the immediate ambient affectance for each object and if each object is spinning (impossible to totally avoid), the affectance field immediately surrounding it (of which it is made) is also spinning, thus objects will not head directly at the center of spinning planets or black-holes. I’m sure stars are a little different due to them spraying particles and radiation out into the surrounding field so much. But even a star must have a spin to some degree. Thus at least some small part of the orbit paths of the planets is affected by the spinning affectance surrounding the Sun, not merely momentum and gravitational migration.

And all of that plays into why they had difficulty with their experiments with the “Aether Theory”. They were very presumptuous when defining the characteristics of “aether”.

Exactly.

This raises the question, then, as to how to mathematically account for this “extra mass” latent to the ambient field and also for the “dark matter” stuck in-between the concentrations of noise that form “particles”. I am thinking that the total extra “gravity” resultant of this latent ambience of noise must be largely negligible on the scale of a solar system and lower, because in our solar system the planets do orbit the sun at a slower velocity the further they are from the sun, as is expected using Newton’s equation. Planets in our solar system might not experience additional mass effects in their orbits such as are experienced by orbiting solar systems around a galactic center. But I would like to have a mathematical representation of this.

From Wikipedia (not the best source, I know),

This shows that mass must be increasing as distance from the center increases, if velocity is to remain largely unchanged. Astronomers run the calculations based on observed mass, without factoring in the ambient affectance field and that “spectrum of density” as FC says.

It would be good to run the calculations for a) a couple of orbital bodies in the galaxy with various distances from the galactic center, and b) a couple of orbital bodies in the solar system with various distances from the Sun. However the problem of faulty measurements of distant bodies around the galactic center must involve improper G value (and I would assume there are also ranges of error in calculations even of small bodies within the solar system), since we can (supposedly) accurately measure both v and r.

Gravitational constant is the value that is needed to “make the equation work out”. Given the unit system chosen this number is set at a particular fixed value. However if we factor in RM’s insights into gravity and mass affectance we might better see G as a sliding scale, not a physical constant. The value of G must APPEAR to be constant while other variables are near-zero. Measurements of gravitational force “attraction” between objects in the solar system within ranges common to us and to our instruments must put those variables at near-zero most of the time. But measuring objects orbiting the galactic center is another matter entirely, of course, and at these highly increased v and r the problems with G surface. For instance, the difference in radius in both cases differs by an order of magnitude of 10^9, and the difference in velocity differs by an order of magnitude of 10, using the Earth as an example.

James, how can we correct Newton’s equation to account for ambient affectance density and the ‘sliding scale’ of mass (noise) latent to the formation of particles? Does RM have a mathematical correction for the gravitational constant, or perhaps I am mistaken and this correction is not needed, in which case how does RM propose to mathematically calculate gravitational attraction given v, r and “G” values?

Wow…

Let me ask you this;

Knowing the virtual reality game called “contemporary physics” to the degree that you do, if someone were to ask you to calculate the time required to reconstitute a human body after teleporting it using the well known Star Trek’s teleporter, how would you respond?

Think about how long it has taken for me to communicate the notion to you that “gravitational force” doesn’t really exist as anything but an appearance and virtual reality element in contemporary physics. And then consider that in the famous equation;

…not only is the F not actually real, but also the “m1” and “m2” aren’t actually real either. They are approximated aberrant appearances and assumptions in a virtual reality game called “Newtonian Physics”. But guess what. Even if those were an accurate representation of reality, that G…? It wouldn’t really exist either.

One of the first things that I thought to do (as apparently you have also) is to calculate the definitional value for G. But after careful consideration, I realized that regardless of getting a proper interpretation for the "m"s involved and accepting the “F” as an empirical appearance, there are so many things being left out, “hidden variables” not yet discussed, that the very notion of a “gravitational constant”, “G”, became so primitive as to be silly; “trying to calculate the reconstitution time required for a teleported body”.

G ≡ Gfudge Factor

I have been talking about the definitional requirements of existence relating to the notion called “gravity”
A) There is no such thing as “force”, pushing and pulling, but rather merely migration of concentrations of affectance noise.

B) The immediate ambient environment determines all change of motion; “no forces acting at a distance”.

C) The ambient affectance field is itself in motion relative to a logically absolute metaframe which constitutes a drag effect counter to the direction of its motion.

D) The ambient field actually spins with the spinning concentration of affectance called “the particle” or the “mass”.

Although I have mentioned it, we haven’t really gotten into the effects of “electric potential” as it relates to the motion of bodies, even celestial bodies not merely particle motion.

I was talking about ultra minuscule sub-atomic physics. And now you jump up into astrophysics. That is what I call “a reach” and worse, “grasping for what is not within your reach”, trying to calculate the Heavens before you actually have the core of Earth calculated. Which is closer and more relevant to you (not that either would pay your bills other than to sells books - another can of worms in itself).

And then beyond those concerns, is the ever present concern of;

Always followed by a very predictable and empirically verified;

Other than a footnote in another era’s book of “people we now want to promote”, what did Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, and such people really get out of their calculations and version of a “book”?

I’m not saying that it is a pointless discussion, but something a little closer to immediately relevant to our current lives would be more attractive, because those people lived through a “shit-storm” in their lives merely for the sake of guessing at closer approximations for their contemporary ideas, and against the flow/authority of the day.

To me if you are going to go to the trouble of resisting the flow, then make NO assumptions. Make NO compromises in accuracy. And make NO presumptions that you aren’t going to be attacked as a heretic for the rest of your life (unless you are unwittingly supporting your master).

It was about all I could tolerate to post that equation, not because I knew that I would be attacked, but rather because I already knew that it was merely a “Kepler’s Third Law of Planetary Motion”, a reasonable upgrade to contemporary belief still ignoring E-field, statical anomaly concerns, and presumptuous ontological elements that make it something that cannot be currently empirically demonstrated to be true without a great deal of my personal communication with the one trying to prove it. Thus in an upcoming era would be deemed as false belief.

Of course from my perspective, I am merely trying to convince an “ancient Roman bartender” that his “gods aren’t real” and there are more important concerns that are more immediately relevant and concrete; his life and ITS ambient, spinning, fluctuating field of affectance and potential that will cause a migration of His position in the heavens, wherein even an approximation upgrade offers real-time hope of improvement… along with a future effect in the next era.

So could we possibly “come down to Earth” a bit before worrying about mathematically correcting Kepler (who didn’t even compensate for relativity - the subjective observational appearance of reality).

In RM:AO to calculate the orbital paths of the Solar planets, you would need a reasonable approximation of the following;

Affectance density map
Affectance vector map
Electrostatic map
Electromagnetic map
Planet masses
Planetary rotations
Sun rotation
Solar wind
Regional affectance velocity

…all set into a 3D vector matrix

How would one go about calculating all of those factors mathematically to a reasonable approximation? Have you or your simulation done that yet?

Can you also elaborate on this equation,

Please define variables c0, c00 and adn, I have a loose grasp on this but I need more accuracy in my understanding.

Basically what I’m looking for is something like, “here are the several factors involved, here is how we arrive at their reasonable calculation values, here is the equation for their relation, and here is the calculation of that equation which explains X observed behavior.” I figured the so-called problem of galaxy rotation curves could be a good way for RM to stand out above the approach of modern physics, by demonstrating that RM calculations can explain the observed behavior whereas physics cannot explain it without inventing unobservable “dark matter spheres” around galaxies.

???
Those aren’t “calculation factors”. Those are direct measurements, “data” to be gathered to set into a large vector matrix. And like I said, I live in the sub-atomic universe and you are leaping up into the astronomic universe. So no, I haven’t calculated any of that sort of thing. I don’t have any of that data nor does anyone else who I am aware of… one small universe at a time.

What I need is a measurement of the change in size of subatomic particles as they go from a large mass such as the Earth’s surface and various points out between the planets in the Solar system. From that, I could derive a “Rosetta Stone” to translate contemporary physics units into far more precise RM:AO terms. After that, you could then calculate a definitionally accurate statistical dynamic for the Solar system for thousands of years to come assuming no large outside interferences.

I guess you missed this part;

Yes I missed that the first time around, thanks for re-posting.

Just to give you an idea of the complexity involved in calculating gravitational migration in RM:AO;

The gray arrows are the affectance wavelets flowing in and out, affected by the regional spin. The region of high concentration, “the particle” (in green) begins to accelerate when one side has a greater amount of affectance flowing in than out due to a gradient in the density of the region (usually do to another high concentration nearby - another particle, but not necessarily).

Once a velocity is reached relative to the ambient field without imbalance from front to rear, the amount of affectance flowing in and out is higher along the axis of travel and the spin of the particle region is around that axis regardless of where it has been before (another hint concerning relative motion).

Of course average potential imbalances, ΔPtA (electric fields), are ignored in the pic. In reality such “EM-fields” do come into play any time a region accelerates. By comparison Kepler’s laws are merely a cartoon version of the reality.

You really need vector analysis to convert from RM:AO to classical physics. Physics uses the ontology of objects and forces with mathematics. The I Ching uses changing and fixed with intuitive logic. RM:AO merely uses Affectance as the equation for all space/reality with Definitional Logic.

I have finally got my mini-animator/emulator up to the point where I can make the following type of animation (I had to give up on the MSBS effort). The following displays what happens as a positive affectance pulse (“pulse of light”) enters and exists a varied affectance field (a “gravity field”).

At the far left is the purely conceptual meta-space void of any physical existence which then graduates into a minimum physical space (such as the vacuum between the galaxies) wherein a slight compression of the propagating potentials occurs and then into a more concentrated affectance field such as near a large mass or within a “dark matter” region of space and then out again.

The purple wave is James Maxwell’s “magnetic wave”. Note that as a propagating wave enters or leaves a mass field, such as Earth’s gravity field, the magnetic field slightly lags the measurable potential (the “E-field”). As the potential wave enters the affectance field, the peak of the compression wave (“magnetic wave”) is slightly ahead of the peak of the potential wave but as it leaves the region, the peak of the magnetic field lags slightly behind the potential wave peak. If there is no change in the gravity field, the magnetic wave and the potential wave are effectively in phase although in a perfectionistic sense, the magnetic always lags the potential.

Also note that those waves are not calculated using any conventional physics nor are they presumed to remain sinusoidal. The original wave at the left is produced to be sinusoidal, but after that point, each individual point of the wave (each of 66) is projected on its own merits into the affectance field. The appearance of a compressed sinusoid is merely coincidental.

Also realize that the green “regional Affectance” is made of that exact same traveling wave merely much, much smaller and randomly propagating. The green is merely a higher view of extremely small blue-purple waves exactly as the propagating one. The more densely such waves gather, the more they slow their own kind. And that principle is why entropy cannot keep space void of matter or form. In that one video, you see the entire fundamental make of everything in the universe as the equation of space actualizes. The video is not merely an animation, but is a “crude emulation” (crude due to resolution issues). The forms it reveals are the end result of actual logic and calculations independent of any presumed measurements. What you see is what is necessarily true of any physical universe.

A) light slows in a gravity/mass field.
B) the ratio of magnetic to electric potential varies with the affectance density (the permeability and permittivity of space).
C) the magnetic field varies its phase with the electric as it enters or leaves a mass field.
D) the wave-length of light decreases as it enters a mass field and thus the mass field must be included in any energy content equations concerning photons.