
It is showing the relation of affectance potential to affectance density. The ambient determines positive from negative potential and the frequency (or change rate) determines the density ("mass field", "gravitation field", and/or "energy density").
Moderator: Flannel Jesus
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:The "particle motion" means that the "particle" moves or relocates because the center of the clump of noise has shifted toward the more dense affectance field, If the ambient affectance noise had been denser on one side of a particle than the opposite.
So you use the word "density" instead of the word "mass" or the word "gravity" because you are saying that the density moves and attracts, although the physicists have been saying for some centuries that also in the case of density the gravity is the cause of moving and attracting, not the density itself, although the density is the most important factor of mass and thus gravity.
Thus density is defined as mass divided by volume:- thus:
density = mass / volume
.
You seem to be missing the point, so let me start over.
In strictly RM:AO terms;1) Given any small portion of space, we know that it is filled with nothing but infinitesimal pulses of randomly propagating affect, a "field of affectance".
2) If the density of the pulses gets too high, a prolonged traffic jam occurs as the pulses encounter each other. The concentration of affects at the center of the traffic jam becomes extremely highly dense and crowded. It grows to a maximum density possible. And the density or concentration of the randomly propagating affects gradually decreases with the distance from that center. That very small region immediately surrounding that center is easily visible and is referred to as "a particle". The visible concentration is "the particle of matter".
3) The surrounding less dense field is not visible and extends far from the particle and gets less dense, less concentrated, the further away from the particle.
4) If two such concentrations of affects are in close proximity, both with lesser concentrated fields surrounding them, the two centers will begin to migrate toward each other because the concentration/density is greater between the two particles than other surrounding areas.
5) The migration occurs because the traffic is heavier between the two traffic jams and that causes the random propagating to be slower between the particles than other regions, thus inside the small region of each particle there is more prolongation/delaying occurring in the small area nearer the other particle. Because the particle affectance concentration is already at a maximum level, the particles cannot simply grow larger. Instead they shift or migrate the maximum concentration/density, maintaining the same size, merely closer to each other.
Now in terms of common physics;1) Given any small portion of space, we know that it is filled with pulses of randomly propagating "EMR energy and gravity".
2) There might also be a "particle of mass" floating in that space.
3) A "gravitational field" is emitted by that particle.
4) If there are two such particles in close proximity, they will be attracted toward each other.
5) The two particles gravitate toward each other because they each attract the other by gravitational force.
So to translate;
Affectance field = EMR energy and gravity.
Highly concentrated affectance field = mass particle.
Low concentrated affectance field = gravity field (can be called "mass field").
Affectance particle migration due to a gradient in the affectance field = particle mass attraction due to gravitational force.Arminius wrote:Do you go even as far as saying that the density has more to do with the electromagnetic field, the affectance field, than with the graviatation and its field?
That would be strange.
Affectance field with higher average PtA than the ambient field has = positive electrostatic field.
Affectance field with lower average PtA than the ambient field has = negative electrostatic field.
Affectance density = energy density.
The density of affectance has little to do with the electrostatic field. The electromagnetic field is a field of changing electrostatic field. The "density" involved merely refers to how much changing of the electrostatic field is happening within a volume. There is far, far more changing of the subtle EMR within a strong gravity field, but the magnitude of the changing is infinitesimal and the average electrostatic field is close to zero.
An electromagnetic field might have greater energy density than a gravitational field. It just depends what you are measuring. The energy density is the affectance density. So close to the center of a particle, where the affectance density is near maximum possible, the gravitational effect/field is extremely high, but there is no detectable EMR.
In common physics, the smallest electromagnetic wave is a huge macroscopic wave of affectance pulses. In RM:AO the affectance field itself is made of the same thing as that macroscopic EMR wave, merely infinitesimal sizes and randomized.
James S Saint wrote:Perhaps this picture will help:
It is showing the relation of affectance potential to affectance density. The ambient determines positive from negative potential and the frequency (or change rate) determines the density ("mass field", "gravitation field", and/or "energy density").
Arminius wrote:But how would you define a "particle" then?
Arminius wrote:But a cluster may consist of several particles.
Arminius wrote:You call such a "cluster" also a "clump", don't you?
Arminius wrote:The noise (the inequality of the density of the noise) causes the particle Motion. But why is it noise? It must be something electromagnetic, of course, but why noise?
Arminius wrote:Do you accept the dualism of light (which means that light is both a wave and a particle) ?
Arminius wrote:Why do the affects that were headed in the direction of motion remain within the particle of noise longer than others when the center of the noise shifts?
Arminius wrote:Affects are merely waves of electromagnetic radiation?
Arminius wrote:According to RM:AO existence is that which has affect. But what is an „affect“ according to RM:AO? And what is an „affectance“ according to RM:AO?
af·fect 1 (-fkt)
tr.v. af·fect·ed, af·fect·ing, af·fects
1. To have an influence on or effect a change in
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:According to RM:AO existence is that which has affect. But what is an „affect“ according to RM:AO? And what is an „affectance“ according to RM:AO?af·fect 1 (-fkt)
tr.v. af·fect·ed, af·fect·ing, af·fects
1. To have an influence on or effect a change in
Thus the nominative "affect" refers to the changing itself or the influencing itself (note: "Effect" refers to the end result of an Affect).
Affectance ≡ an amount of subtle affects upon affects or influences upon influences.
Arminius wrote:You've just given me a very general and thus a well known definition, but I wanted a physical definition, James.
So I guess there is no physical definition for "affect" and "affectance" according to RM:AO.
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:You've just given me a very general and thus a well known definition, but I wanted a physical definition, James.
So I guess there is no physical definition for "affect" and "affectance" according to RM:AO.
Well, I thought that was a physical explanation.
Did you what me to write it on a cannon ball or in a physics book?
How do you propose that I make it more physical?
Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:You've just given me a very general and thus a well known definition, but I wanted a physical definition, James.
So I guess there is no physical definition for "affect" and "affectance" according to RM:AO.
Well, I thought that was a physical explanation.
Did you what me to write it on a cannon ball or in a physics book?
How do you propose that I make it more physical?
You meant "want", right?
Arminius wrote:For example:
"EMR" as such can be explained physically, has a "physical" definition, although we know, that all definitions are linguistical / logical. Both "affect" and "affectance" as such can't be explained physically, haven't "physical" definitions, although we know, that all definitions are linguistical / logical. Both "affect" and "affectance" as such have "metaphysical" definitions, and we know, that all definitions are linguistical / logical.
Return to Science, Technology, and Math
Users browsing this forum: No registered users