Page 13 of 34

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:34 pm
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").

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:17 pm
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:
density = mass / volume
- thus:
.

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.

But how would you define a "particle" then?

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:26 pm
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").

You wrote in that picture (for example): "Affectance Potential" and "Affectance is the Changing of the Potential to Affect". Thus the "Affectance Potential" must be the "Changing-of-the-Potential-to-Affect-Potential".

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:13 am
In English, if you want to say, "The potential associated with the Affectance", you can simply say, "Affectance Potential". Granted that it is a little ambiguous because you might be implying A) a potential that the affectance exercises on other things, or B) a potential that is an inside/inherent part of the affectance. So you can't always get pedantic in English.

Since we are talking about the affectance that is EVERYTHING, not merely an isolated portion relative to something else, one can deduce that we are speaking of (B).

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:56 am
Arminius wrote:But how would you define a "particle" then?

Particle ≡ a small self-sustaining cluster of affectance.
A Sub-atomic Particle ≡ a particle within or smaller than an atom.
Monoparticle ≡ a particle with a single center of affectance concentration (electron, positron, neutrino).
Polyparticle ≡ a particle with multiple centers of affectance concentration (proton, neutron, atomic nucleus).

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:43 am
But a cluster may consist of several particles.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:50 am
Arminius wrote:But a cluster may consist of several particles.

If the cluster is so small as to seem to be a single entity, it can be called a "particle of a perceived greater entity". An atom can be called a "particle" until you look too close at it. A spec of dirt can be called a "particle of dirt". The word "particle" is a bit abstract unless being used within a specific context.

In the case of sub-atomic physics, a particle is an isolated maximum concentration of infinitesimal EMR noise, a "cluster of affectance".

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:19 am
You call such a "cluster" also a "clump", don't you?

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 3:24 am
Arminius wrote:You call such a "cluster" also a "clump", don't you?

Yes; "cluster", "clump", "traffic jam", "crowd in a field", and "particle" are all words that I use to refer to the same basic concept.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:54 pm
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?

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:09 pm
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?

"Noise" merely means that it is lacking pattern, randomized on an infinitesimal level. Since there is nothing to dictate a particular pattern for affectance, it travels freely enough to never form a pattern except by aberrant coincidence. The densities in different regions sway up and down like the waves in an ocean. And just like those waves, what they are calling CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) is merely the natural resonance of affectance out in space, "naturally occurring waves" that are detectable. A degree of harmonic resonance cannot be avoid. With a great deal of trouble, it can be minimized and thus reduce the double-slit experiment pattern, but it can never be reduced to zero (and has nothing at all to do with the Bogus Band Theory).

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:35 am
Do you accept the dualism of light (which means that light is both a wave and a particle) ?

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:17 am
Arminius wrote:Do you accept the dualism of light (which means that light is both a wave and a particle) ?

Light is not a particle except in the sense that because all of the affectance within a photon is going in the same direction, the affectance stays together. But a photon cannot replenish itself so as to remain a stable size and shape as particles do.

A photon is merely a small amount of EMR that is typically found in specific sizes due to how a photon gets generated and detected, the changing of an electron orbit. Given a horrendous amount of distance, the photon would very gradually spread and become undetectable. Photons can combine their affect and thus can give the impression of being a particle at a specific point when in fact there was merely a higher affectance at that point as multiple remnants of prior photons overlap. That is what causes the famous "Double-Slit Interference pattern".

In that experiment, particles can be used in place of light and achieve similar results. Because the results are similar, people can be convinced that there is little difference between a particle and a photon. But in reality, the particles display a similar interference pattern for an entirely different reason.

So, no. The "wave-particle dualism" is merely more superstitious disguise of ignorance and misdirection.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:42 pm
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?

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:49 pm
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?

Because the center of the particle is moving in the same direction as the affects that were headed in that direction.

If an affect, A, is traveling from left to the right through points
x1y2, x2y2, x3y2, x4y2,....
And the particle, P, is moving through points
x1y2, x2y2, x3y2, x4y2,....
While during same time, another affect, B, is traveling through points
x2y1, x2y2, x2y3, x2y4,....
Although the affect A is moving faster than the particle P, they occupy more of the same locations during the same times. Whereas point x2y2 is the only point shared between affect B and particle P.

Or you could think of it as two planes passing through a moving cloud. One plane, A, is flying in the same direction as the cloud while the other, B, is flying transverse to the cloud's direction. Plane A passing through the cloud and headed in the same direction as the cloud spends more time in the cloud than plane B passing through the cloud transverse to the motion of the cloud. If the cloud was slowing the planes, the plane headed in the same direction as the cloud would take longer to get to its destination.

And light passing through a glass ball will be delayed longer if the light is traveling in the same direction as the ball.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:25 am
Affects are merely waves of electromagnetic radiation?

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 2:43 am
Arminius wrote:Affects are merely waves of electromagnetic radiation?

Well, it is more like an EMR wave is made of affectance waves. There is a huge difference in scale between basic RM:AO and common physics. RM:AO deals with waves that range from (but not including) absolute zero up to perhaps 1000 times smaller than an electron. Whereas the smallest physics gamma wave is much larger than an electron.

In RM:AO there is no such thing as an affectance wave that isn't made of smaller affectance waves. And a typical EMR wave is a huge collection of affectance waves that just happens to have similar direction and polarity because of how such waves are produced. It is similar to comparing the sizes of an ocean wave (representing a gamma physics wave) to a single water molecule in RM:AO (representing an affectance "pulse" or wavelet).

To physics, an electron is so small as to be merely a tiny spec with almost no mass or size. But in RM:AO, that same electron is filled with millions of affectance wavelets or pulses with very notable mass and size. And an EMR gamma wave is much larger than that electron and filled with billions more affectance waves. An EMR wave is a huge wave of infinitesimal affectance waves.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:34 pm
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?

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:25 pm
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.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:38 pm
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.

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.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 1:15 am
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?

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 1:53 am
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?

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 1:55 am
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?

Right. I don't understand what you are asking for.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:38 pm
For example:

"EMR" as such can be explained physically, has a "physical" definition, although we know, that all definitions are lingustical / logical. Both "affect" and "affectance" as such can't be explained physically, haven't "physical" definitions, although we know, that all definitions are lingustical / logical. Both "affect" and "affectance" as such have "meatphysical" definitions, and we know, that all definitions are lingustical / logical.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 4:40 pm
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.

I'm guessing that by "general", "metaphysical", and "logical", you mean "abstract". All changing is physical. The physical universe is nothing but the changing. And nothing changes unless it is physical.

The most fundamental changing (thus affecting and being affected) is that of the electric potential. As the electric potential changes, electromagnetic waves are formed. As those EMR waves travel about, they form the entire rest of the physical universe.

So a specific example of a physical "affect" is an EMR propagating wave. Physical "affectance" is the ocean of such subtle propagating EMR waves that forms the entire universe (or any portion within).

And another more common word for "affect" or "affectance", although sometimes abused, is "energy".