'Feminine’used as a metaphor for the animus/anima distinction within every one of us, some more, some less.
Einstein didn’t believe in the gravitational force either. He tried to explain gravitational attraction as the result of space being bent. It is actually due to an uneven reconstituting of sub-atomic particles causing a migration of the mass centers toward each other, no “forces” at all, nor “bent space”.
The very idea of a gravitational force was merely an idea, a postulate. That idea seemed to be true. It seemed to even be measurable. It was certainly useful to think in such terms. But then all superstitions usually are to a degree. Things acted as if there were forces between them. The fact of the matter is that it was an incorrect idea.
I just read the first page of this thread, and it’s very obvious James is stating that this is an electromagnetic force. It seems perfectly obvious that gravity does not warp space so as to place something in orbit because it’s also repelling it (perhaps with dark matter). It makes more sense that there are electromagnetic forces IMO.
The question of this thread is whether “forces” are “farces” or not, and I think we should not speak of “forces” but of “interactions”. And if we do that, it will soon become obvious that gravity is not the “queen of the universe” but merely one of the natural interactions.
Remember me telling you that they change their wording from time to time in order to disguise their faults? They used to speak of the four fundamental forces of the universe (electromagnetic, gravitational, strong, and weak). Now it is being stated as:
They decided to combine electric potential, magnetics, and electromotive all into “electromagnetic” and strong plus weak into “nuclear” and, due to relativity, left out gravitation, reducing the prior four into three. And they eventually stopped calling them “forces”, now referring to them as “interactions”.
They are growing up and one day will reveal that gravitation can be combined into the other interactions and all be merely the one field of Affectance and its many interactive aberrant properties, “such as gravitation, electromagnetics, and nuclear bindings”.
[size=150]Science is lagging behind.[/size]
Yes, and I think it is mostly because of non-scientific lobbyism. There is too much non-scientific lobbyism in science, and this lobbyism jams science, and, if it will going on, will bring science to an end. Another point is that scientis themselves get more an more corrupt, so that they become more and more part of this non-scientific lobbyism in science, and that means that they become more and more non-scientists, thus more and more ideologues (modern religious humans). And a third point is that all this fits to the brainwashing of the people by propaganda.
[size=150]This theory of affectance is similar to an old theory of mine. I chucked it because the theory didn’t work.
Now, I am probably misunderstanding your theory, but real gravity seems to violate the law of conservation of energy.
That is, gravity is a continuous source of free energy.
Now you might argue that life is like a pudding, and objects create dents in the pudding which push other objects toward it, like a suction cup.
However this doesnt explain why the force of gravity continues to attract other bodies, after the dents in the pudding are seemingly filled.
Maybe I am misunderstanding.[/size]
my other theory is that if the pudding theory is true then the universe is a kind of brain. And outside this universe is a universe with inverse physics, Therefore to this universe the other universe is contain within this universe rather than outside. The other universe is trying to push the universe inward but it can’t because it’s inside the universe. So instead the force is converted to gravity. However this theory of mine leaves most with more questions than answers.
Affectance Ontology is a whole mountain of explanation concerning literally everything throughout all of physics (and sociology, psychology, economics,…). And I really need someone who understands a bit less of it than I do to explain it to new comers.
As far as the effect called Gravity, here’s a pic (among very many). Affectance is “made of” what a physicist would probably call ultra-minuscule wavelets and spikes of electromagnetic noise/radiation.
What we call mass and gravity fields are made of that affectance. Mass is merely a high concentration of it and so called “empty space” is a very low concentration of it. The “gravity field” or “mass field” is everything in between. Affectance is always in motion, a sea of infinitesimal pulses speeding about, into and out of the higher traffic jams that we call “mass particles”. A particle is merely a traffic jam of fleeting affectance.
And surrounding every such traffic jam is gradually less jammed up fields of affectance getting less and less dense the further from the particle you get. That gradually lessening field of affectance is what we call a “gravity field” because the effect that it has is to cause any other affectance traffic jams to migrate closer to it (exactly like highway traffic jams and for the same reason - they will automatically migrate together).
Affectance becomes concentrated because EMR pulses delay each other and can build up so much that a center of congestion can occur that never goes away. That is what a sub-atomic particle is.
Between two mass particles, the affectance field is more dense, of course. And that means that more delaying is going on between the particles. And in turn, that means that the center of the traffic jams grows gradually toward the in between space. We measure that as a “pull of gravity” or “mass attraction”. The point is that there is no force there. It is only a traffic jam in motion, predictably toward any other traffic jam.
The following is an anime showing the affectance density relative to the affectance/mass/gravity field around it.
The bump is the particle (aka “traffic jam”) and the lower portion is the mass/gravity field around it which, in this case, is provided by a distant mass and causing the shown particle to grow slightly larger, gaining substantially in energy.
And what they are now calling “dark matter/energy” is merely a higher density affectance field that isn’t associated with any particles. Even when very widely spread out and transparent, affectance will still cause migrational motion, aka gravity.
And btw, light slows as it passes through an affectance/mass/gravity field. So if it is true that there is dark matter between the stars (“high density affectance” - “dense space”), the light passing through those regions would be retarded as though it was passing through a transparent substance, similar to passing through glass. And that effect might be one factor in calculating the actual distance to those stars.
And affectance also affects the degree of red-shifting involved in extreme distances. That effect is sufficient to make the universe appear to be expanding when it actually isn’t.
In addition, such an effect might explain why some stars don’t appear to be moving away while most others do.
The bottom line is that there is no reason to believe that there was a big bang nor that the universe is expanding.
Hmm makes sense.
Yes.
Does the planet Earth have more affectance than its moon called Moon? And if so: Why?
Where does affectance originally come from?
Like, either it was already there, or it came from nothing.
There are only two options.
if it came from somethig else, that somethig has those same options.
Like if I revealed my secret of the universe it would give maybe a third option and make more sense.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your question.
Every mass, Earth or Moon, is made entirely of affectance (as is literally all things throughout the entire universe). A “heavy mass” is merely a higher concentration of affectance than a “lighter mass”. So of course the Earth, being a larger/heavier mass directly implies a greater concentration of affectance than the Moon. Weight or Mass and the degree of affectance concentration are the same thing.
As posted on your Universe and Time thread;
I think you are referring to the aether. The aether contains alternate left and right spinning sub-atomic particles. These particles are unattached and spin at the speed of light. The size of these particles is one plank length cubed. When light passes through the aether it temporarily pushes the particles together to form a spin wave which carries light forward at the speed of light which is a constant. This constant is caused by the fact that the particles are spinning at the speed of light. When one of these particles stops spinning it forms a hole in space which the other spinning particles rotate around, thus forming what we call matter.
Affectance is very similar, but not quite identical to aether.
Emmm … nah. Affectance is not made of particles. Particles are made of affectance.
How does this ‘affectance’ relate to the positive/negative or left/right spin aspects of our universe?
By “left/right spin”, I have to assume that you mean “clockwise/counter clockwise”, the universe has no “right” or “left” to it.
And asking how affectance relates to such spinning is about like asking the relation between water molecules and whirl pools. One issue doesn’t really have much to do with the other issue.
Spin occurs in the universe simply because it is impossible to be so absolutely perfectly balanced at all times such as to not spin. It would be about like trying to balance a bowling ball atop the point of a needle. And once the ball begins to fall in any direction, it takes a considerable cause for that direction to be changed. Thus once a spin begins, very little can stop it.
Although all subatomic particles have a degree of spin, the aether-like affectance of which they are made does not have any spinning quality to it. The affectance whirls around such as to cause the particles to spin merely because the average momentum on one side of the cluster of affectance (the “particle”) happened to be slightly greater in one direction than any opposition on the other side. And once such a spinning begins, there really isn’t much of anything that can stop it. And the more it spins, the more it encourages more spinning, thus once spinning, it tends to spin as fast as possible.
The phrase “spinning at the speed of light” doesn’t actually make any sense. In fact very near and inside a particle the phrase “speed of light” doesn’t actually make much sense. Affectance is made of ultra minuscule pulses/waves of electromagnetic radiation. And such pulses do have a speed, but that speed (and thus the speed of light, also made of affectance) varies depending on the ambient concentration of affectance. It is much like the speed of a person walking alone versus a person walking through a crowd, especially when all of the people are not headed in the same direction.
The speed of light “in a total vacuum” (which in itself cannot really exist) is always the same as the speed of the affectance of which the light is made. Light is merely a very large pulse/wave of affectance that is all traveling in the same direction, much like a drop of water falling to Earth versus the molecules of which that drop is made. An important distinction is that affectance has no minimum size involved in its constituency, nor particles (spinning or not).
The particles that I am referring to are only one plank length in size which I would personally considered to be the lowest common denominator of the universe. That is, within our fractal reference frame. There are obviously other fractal dimensions which may be conceived as being an ‘affectance’ type of influence on our reality. Your post appears to lack certain elements of discussion, such as reference to - fractals, infinity, dimension, push verses pull, real vacuum or black hole formation, creation of aetheric pressure, dissipation of aetheric pressure, matter formation and light transference.
Please explain how your theory accounts for -
- Light transference. 2. Matter creation. 3. Matter destruction 4. Light speed limit. 5 Gravity
I just use left and right because clockwise and counter clockwise takes more effort to type. My theory is a fundamental theory which creates a logical sequence of events which the universe must obey in order to exist. I am only observing what I see and I didn’t make it up. The formula E= MC squared is taken for granted. I have turned this formula into a practical application. ie Two particles of aether stop spinning and produce a large amount of energy. When they want to make an atom bomb, what do they do? They push particles together into a compression. This is how the sun creates energy, by pushing particles of aether together. The surface of the sun is 6,000 degrees centigrade, while its atmosphere is millions of degrees hotter.Why? Scientists still haven’t got a clue about this. This is because they deny the existence of an aether, thus, they have painted themselves into a corner. I am offering a simple solution.
The ‘affectance’ of what you are talking about must be some kind of an inter-dimensional fractal reality which affects our dimension. My theory, is that there are an infinite number of dimensions which extend inwards and outwards from our dimension. These are fractal realities. Infinity extends forever outwards and forever inwards. Dimensions separate each fractal existence. An atom is a fractal reality which has its own dimension. Thus, an atom in our dimension could be a galaxy in another fractal reality. A galactic grouping is just a single fractal in another larger fractal dimension. Thus, what appears to be a mysterious ‘affectance’ which shimmers and vibrates is just the smaller fractals which come into and out of existence due to their fractal properties and speeded up time scales.
I believe that the Plank theory is merely a modern age version of “Turtles all the way down” (Atlas holding up the Earth while standing on an elephant that is standing on a giant turtle. And then its ‘turtles all the way down from there’). There is no actual Plank length associated with physical reality, merely with trying to get QM to work out. But the universe is not quantized despite the wishes and whims of the Quantum Magi.
Well, you can start here:
Rational Metaphysics: From Void to Inertia, Mass, Momentum, Particles, and Gravity
I don’t believe in any extra dimensions either (can in fact prove them to not exist). Unlike Newtonian, Einstein, and Quantum physics, my RM:Affectance Ontology is very complete. It doesn’t need any mystical or magical (inexplicable) anything.
What about fractals? Do you even know what a fractal is?
Well, you have been a busy little beaver, but are you constructing something or are you obstructing something? Your theory doesn’t seem to achieve anything useful that I can see. It just seems to state that the universe is a non-solid wishy washy place that comes and goes when it pleases. Where is the usefulness? Where is the structure? Where is the relationship to reality?
So, where does the sun get its energy from? Please explain in terms of affectance.