James S Saint,
I assume “negaton” is an electron. 
Eugene Morrow
A “negaton” is what they used to call an anti-proton, whereas an anti-electron is a positron. An anti-proton, negaton, has the same characteristics as a proton except for the negative charge. It has around 1000 times the mass of an electron, just as does the proton. Without such mass, the atom or anti-atom could never form.
There are necessarily ONLY 3 spacial dimensions. This is provable through definitional logic.
Again, time also is necessarily only a forward measurement. This too is also provable through definitional logic.
RM doesn’t really bother with relativity as such is merely a means of describing what a physicist might expect to measure by ignoring his own motion or condition. RM is more concerned with what is, not merely with what a physicist might experience by ignoring his own condition under the presumption that he is the center of the universe and without a brain. It really doesn’t take that much logic to discover that relativity is itself relative merely to one’s ignorance (much the same as statistics in QM). All things can be fully explained without the concern of relativity (specific or general).
It is necessarily true that what we call “local and deterministic” is an essential property to all principles of reality. Again, this is provable through definitional logic.
Superposition in QM actually refers to the superposition/overlaying of the statistical graphs concerning where a particle MIGHT be at any one time. It never really referred to the true physical existence concerns except by those who intentionally attempt to dismiss reality entirely so as to replace it with mere mental magic. The effort is totally one of populous manipulation having nothing at all to do with actual Science.
So, no, RM has nothing to do with superposition. Although, to some people that term refers to waves passing through each other, in which case, the affectance waves/noise do in fact pass through each other as long as they never reach a maximum or minimum additive value. Upon maxing out, they will reflect.
“out of your system”?? 
I’m not really sure what you mean by that.
But if you intend on extending a Unified Field Theory (UFT) to a Theory of Everything (ToE), then Rational Metaphysics is most definitely where you want to go. Realize that the fundamental term in RM, “affect”, refers to ANY and ALL potential affects, regardless of the overall subject matter. And “affectance” refers to the entire field of affects involved.
In economics, for example, the “field of affectance” refers to any and all affectors involved in economic behavior. The fundamental rules for RM’s affectance are conceptual and apply exactly as they would in physics, the same for societal behavior or personal behavior.
A “particle” in society, is any and all organizations. In psychology a particle is any stable entity involved, such as an ego, a thought, or persistent desire.
As far as I can tell, there has never been a more serious subject to contemplate (including all Religions and Sciences). Through RM, ALL things can be understood.
James S Saint,
We are discussing your theory of physics that I will call James S Saint Rational Metaphysics (JSSRM). We compare that to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
I’m glad I made a quick mention of the economic stuff. Rational Metaphysics is a way to get a Theory of Everything - I like the strategy. I wish more of physics thought the same way. I won’t side track us anymore on the economics and society side.
Clearly I am behind the times - negatons were anti-protons when I studied physics. I can cope with that.
I approve that JSSRM uses only three dimensions of space. TEW sees no evidence for there being any more spacial dimensions.
I also approve that JSSRM agrees that time is always a forward measurement. TEW also agrees. As we know, qm has no problems with reversing time when it suits an explanation. For some reason, qm supporters do not raise any concerns or protest about reversing time.
I was surprised by your comments are relativity. You wrote:
I fully accept relativity and yet I don’t always find it immediately obvious. For example that the light travels at the same speed as measured by me and someone else in a rocket ship traveling at half the speed of light. The mechanism of gravity is still a fascinating challenge as well. I get the impression that Rational Metaphysics is not concerned with the “why” here - only with the reality of it happening, and that’s always a good place to start.
I totally approve that JSSRM agrees with the need for a theory to be local and deterministic. TEW was developed with that in mind. As we know, qm is not local and deterministic and qm claims to prove that is necessary. As I like to point out, all qm proofs are subject to their assumption about wave direction.
I also approve that JSSRM denies “superposition of states”. TEW also denies superposition. TEW views the qm claims of superposition as evidence that qm is invalid, while qm supporters put it forward as a feature of their theory.
Once again, I am looking to get a general idea of where JSSRM stands on some big issues.
Question 11: The good bit of qm is that the predictions are very accurate, and TEW shares that thanks to the Reciprocity theorem. How much can we use JSSRM to make predictions about future experiments? I am wondering if JSSRM is more about retro-fitting to proven results than speculating on future results.
Question 12: Does JSSRM have any comment on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP). For qm, this is the most popular feature. For TEW, the maths is the same, but the calculations are about uncertainty in the elementary waves, not the particle. For TEW, particles always have a definite position and momentum, and denies the HUP makes these necessarily “fuzzy” at all times.
Question 13: Does JSSRM have any comments on the “standard model” of particles in physics? TEW claims that many ideas like “parity violation” are illusions created by many factors, partly the HUP which makes “internal structures” to particles a sort of ‘no-go’ area. TEW also denies that the Higgs boson is the key to mass. For TEW the mass comes from the frequency of the elementary wave.
Eugene Morrow
Let me explain a little bit about Reality, Religion, and Quantum Mechanics.
Every religion in the world began as a reasonably thought out philosophy concerning rational thinking, but quickly became a religion for the people. One of the reasons for this is that Reality happens to often be something that people can’t handle but more importantly, is often something that doesn’t really inspire people in any substantial way. The masses often won’t go to war or do what would benefit them unless they believe in something “greater than real life”.
When, about 100 years ago, Science had become something that revealed a newer understanding of the world that promised far more power toward physical influence (technology), it was immediately foreseen that such would have to become another religion for the masses even though deception would be involved. Those that I refer to as the “Quantum Magi” took on the task of interpreting the actual Science into something of fascination so as to create a deeply effective following (Einstein reluctantly joined in). Quantum Mechanics held the greatest promise of allowing for such a social plan in that it held a substantially grounded foundation while leaving room for mystery and imagination.
Beginning around the time of the famous Copenhagen Meeting wherein an “Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” was discussed, the game was on to properly design the new religion. The reason this is important in our conversation is that what you seem to believe to be what QM actually represents is not what the truly educated people know to be true. What the general population hears and follows, even in the universities, is the religion, not the less fascinating facts. It is what they call “the Moonlight”, a dim representation of the truer Sunlight.
The importance of this is that the misunderstanding and conspicuously false theories are all quite intentional. So merely coming up with a new theory that seems more likely doesn’t help. Society wants, because they believe that they need, a new fascinating religion, not merely something that is true. And when I say “society” I am not talking about the common masses, but rather those of substantial influence somewhat running the parade/charade. So merely coming up with something more sensible than QM doesn’t really mean anything and isn’t going to go far. Trying to compare TEW to QM is merely comparing one painting on the wall to another. Those of influence are not going to believe in either, nor do they care. They know that it is merely a painting, a Moonlight image. And they are not actually interested in Truth, but rather social control - religion. QM and modern science is no more than a religion and is intentionally created as such (the religion of the Judeo-Human Secularists).
When I am discussing Rational Metaphysics, I am not speaking of merely another “theory” or “religion”, but rather of that deep down truth that such influential people really couldn’t care less about… UNLESS it reveals something of significance to THEM. And that means a means to gain more strength in uniting the masses… under their control.
I just wanted to clear that little bit up since you keep trying to compare things to QM. QM is a road show for the masses, nothing more. But it is a very intently designed and backed charade, nothing to challenge lightly. Rational Metaphysics is ONLY of concern to those who have reason to know the real truth beyond merely what the masses find fascinating. From that knowledge, much greater influences can be derived.
In the societal form of RM, these things become very clear as discussions and the logic behind the affectance relating to people’s behavior and society’s unity (religion) come into focus. RM is only for the serious designers and engineers in the world, not for the general masses who are merely interested in the fascination and fun. In this regard, it is no different than all of those before it now called Religion and/or Science. RM is the real Truth behind ALL of the Myths.
Now my real point is merely that you should stop trying to “be better than QM” as though QM was actually believed by anyone of importance. Those people only believe what conspicuously promises them more influence, nothing more.
RM allows for any “universal constant” to be calculated to any degree of accuracy desired depending merely on the size and speed of the computer. It can do this, unlike Science, because it is not dependent upon observational premises, but definitional premises.
When it comes to predictions of any experiment, it is merely a question of how much one knows about the real environment in which the experiment is to be conducted. This is true of normal contemporary physics as well, but a different set of variables must be known. RM is not opposed to statistical measures at all, in fact utilizes them considerably with its “Afflate Analysis”. It is through the statistical measures that QM and RM can easily become very accurate even when all of the variables are not as known as they should be.
RM, unlike QM, provides for a reverse computation from the statistical analysis that will then reveal those formerly unknown variables. Once those become known, any more experimentation can be calculated to truly perfect accuracy without any experimental effort required. For example, with RM, there is actually no need at all to build a multi-billion dollar particle accelerator just to find out what is going to happen when a couple of particles collide. If they find anything different than what RM predicted, they messed up their experiment.
Realize that RM is as accurate at predicting physical reality as mathematics is concerning a final value. Both require their variables to be properly filled in, but after that, it is merely calculation, not experimentation.
RM has no interest in the Uncertainty principle for a variety of reasons. As expressed in the last post, the uncertainty principle is merely a part of the charade involving what can be measured by a physicist who cannot actually think beyond the obvious. QM gets “fuzzy” because they are only really talking about probabilities, not actualities, and consider that what is known or thought to be the only reality that exists.
In RM, there are no “fuzzy” entities as long as the borders of entities are clearly specified (an issue of proper epistemology). A real particle doesn’t have, nor can anything truly have, an infinitely defined physical edge. But as far as being in multiple places at once, no. RM supports no such notion. In RM, everything is very certain as long as enough variable data has been provided. But on the other hand, most often, one merely has statistical averages with which to work. In such a case, RM, like QM, can only predict where a particle will “probably be” given any one average scenario.
But RM, unlike QM, does not claim that because the probability of a particle being in two places is equal, that the particle is equally in both places. In RM, probability does not equate to reality. QM is the effort to claim that the mind, what is thought, is what reality is and there is nothing else but thought/mind. RM ignores such manipulations of the mind into fantasies of being a deluded self-made God.
RM goes very deep into the actual structures of particles. And the “standard model” in contemporary QM, is a bit silly from that perspective.
In QM, it is declared that certain things are simply “fundamental”, such as positive and negative attraction, mass attraction, the speed of light, and the “strong and weak forces”. RM explains the exact details concerning exactly why those “fundamental” aberrant effects take place. In RM, such things are far from being fundamental and calling them fundamental is paramount to someone saying that the Sun passing through the sky each day is just fundamental reality, not to be questioned as to why. RM explains ALL of the "why"s.
James S Saint,
We are discussing your theory of physics that I will call James S Saint Rational Metaphysics (JSSRM). We compare that to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
You are braver than I am, saying things I would normally not dare to say. You compared qm to a religion, and wrote:
I must say I have to agree. Physics students get to a point where they either join the religion and defend it rigourously, or they refuse to continue study, like I did. I did first year physics at University, and decided I could not go into a profession that talked like the qm believers. I could see the maths worked, and yet it was obvious that qm did not know why it worked.
Today, I look on physics as enjoying the quantum weirdness - it makes out qm believers as super-humans who understand the magic. The more weird the results, the more powerful they seem to be.
You are right to point out how ambitious I am being:
Yes, by simply putting forward a rational argument, it is unlikely to even be noticed by most of physics. Lewis Little had an article published in a peer-reviewed journal (Physics Essays) and I think was very lucky to get that. The paper was soundly ignored. His book was published by an enlightened publisher, who perhaps also saw the potential for long term sales if the idea finally takes off.
I do have a rational plan about this. Do you read “New Scientist” magazine? The April 28 edition has an opinion article on page 26 written by Nicoli Nattrass called “A popular enlightenment”. The article is mainly about the battle between alternative medicine and mainstream medicine. It points out that the internet has been a mobilizing force for both sides, and so mainstream medicine can use the same tactics that alternative medicine has been using to spread messages.
The issue is raising the standards of debate. The key message is that internet debates are proving very effective. In the medical debates I mentioned above, the article states this:
This may be only the opinion of Nattrass and Goldacre. I agree with them, and I hold out hope of using internet debates to challenge the qm support base.
The normal way science works is what I call a “top down” approach. The experts perform experiments or theorize, and when this is peer reviewed the results are published in journals. We all then receive the new knowledge.
I am attempting a “bottom up” approach. By using debate forums like this, I am first trying to communicate to as many people as possible. Surely out there are people who see qm as a religion, like you and I do. I try to reach them first. I am hoping that this online community grows and can then reach physics students - before they have converted to the qm religion.
What would happen if you are studying physics, and you confront the idea that qm is flawed and kept going by blind devotion from followers. Some of the students will decide that they don’t want to do that. I imagine that one day, physics teaching institutions will start losing students. The reality of teaching institutions is that they are businesses - they need students as income. A lack of income will make them sweat.
What will a business do when faced with loss of revenue? They will be practical - they will either teach a new theory that is popular (like JSSRM or TEW) alongside qm, or at least teach that qm is flawed. They will do enough so that the students feel comfortable coming back.
I am arguing that internet debates (like this one) will hopefully awaken physics students, and the students will vote with their feet and force the physics world to adapt or lose revenue.
Of course, the physics teaching institutions may get a knock on the door from philosophers like you as well. That would be nice. I fear that few philosophers will brave fronting up to physicists who defend themselves with maths. So any help from philosophy will be mainly at the internet debates level.
That’s why I am here debating away. I really believe that over time, debates like this could make a difference. After all, religions sometimes fracture in factions. I want to start such a process in physics. Step 1 is to break up the qm hold on physics. Whether it’s replaced by JSSRM or TEW or something else is Step 2, which seems a ways away yet.
How does my plan sound to you?
Eugene Morrow
So your plan is to start a “grass-roots” Internet platform?
Realize that I am highly skeptical of just about everything that people attempt toward persuading other people, unless they are already very influential or are given grace by those who are.
If you want to actually make progress against the establishment, I would have to recommend a substantial understanding of RM, because nothing but the most exacting is going to get you anywhere. In RM, the establishment itself is exposed, as well as its weaknesses and strengths. Presumption is not allowed in RM.
James S Saint,
We are discussing your theory of physics that I will call James S Saint Rational Metaphysics (JSSRM). We compare that to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
You are right that it’s almost impossibly difficult to overcome the entrenched position of qm in physics. Yes, I am definitely trying an “internet grass roots” approach. There is another factor I have not mentioned.
This is where my comments about being interested in the moods of society are actually very relevant, so I’ll talk about bit about it.
There is a new theory of human behavior called socionomics, which looks at the ups and downs of financial markets, and lots of aspects of human behavior. Economists believe in supply and demand theory, which claims that is a price goes up we are less likely to buy something, and if the price goes down then we are more inclined to buy something. Think of the price of a car or a restaurant meal - the price will certainly sway us one way or the other.
The problem with normal supply and demand theory is that it doesn’t work in financial markets. If the price of a share goes up, then people get excited and want to buy it more, and then the price of a share goes down then people don’t want to own that share at all and want to sell. So the behavior is exactly the opposite to normal supply and demand. It’s one reason by economists are such poor forecasters - their model of human behavior does not apply to most volatile parts of the economy - financial markets like shares, bonds, and currency.
The new theory socionomics focuses squarely on the crazy behavior of financial markets. The idea is that each financial market, each share index for example, follows it’s own fractal pattern going up and down. What also comes out is that the moods of society are linked to these fractal patterns, so trends in everything from fashion, dress lengths, car styles to political movements, revolutions and wars are linked to the same fractal patterns.
The short answer of socionomics is that we are looking at a global economic depression starting right now. It will be longer and deeper than the 1930s. It doesn’t happen overnight. The bottom of this depression looks like 2016. Think of 1930 - there had been a stock market fall, but people thought it was all temporary and that there would be recovery. By 1932 they knew they were in a depression. Socionomics is saying that by 2016 we will definitely know we are in a depression.
It’s a global depression. We all know about European debt problems, and the US had debt problems too. What is less well known is that China has debt problems as well. That is the hint of what is to come.
One of the things that socionomics talks about is that during happy times when financial markets are going up, there is a lot of unity and celebration of establishments. During less happy times when financial markets are going down, people start questioning their allegiance to larger structures. For example, if Quebec is going to succeed from Canada, then socionomics would predict it is much more likely during times when financial markets are going down in Quebec and Canada as a whole. During depressions, nearly everything is questioned.
If you want to read more about socionomics, see:
Socionomics: The Science of History and Social Prediction [Hardcover]
Robert R. Prechter Jr.
Publisher: New Classics Library (April 10, 2003)
ISBN: 0932750575
What does all this mean to physics? The development of qm was in the 20s and 30s. The world has been in a general uptrend since then, which socionomics would argue helps cement the position of qm as the unchallenged emperor of physics. However, should there be a depression, socionomics would argue that qm is likely to be scrutinized and criticized like never before.
That’s why I am debating this now. I really believe that the world economy is going to have major problems very quickly and by 2016 will be in a full scale depression. Now is the time to challenge the emperor of physics. You and I already know that the emperor has no clothes - the explanations are empty, but the emperor has power (the mathematical precision) so at the moment, no one wants to challenge the emperor.
I believe that one day in the next few years, people will wake up and the hold of qm will disappear. Like the collapse of the Soviet Union, the empire goes from monolith to mud almost overnight. The change will be because of the mood of society is changing anyway, all by itself.
For physics, I want new theories, like JSSRM and TEW to be debated and known about, so that if and when qm is challenged then there is something new to choose from. If physics felt there was no alternative, they might grumble a lot about qm but reluctantly keep it.
So I am saying that now is an historic good time to start debating alternatives to qm. It’s not that I think I am going to personally persuade many people. I think JSSRM and TEW will have to do that on their own merits. What I am doing is taking advantage of what I think is the best time to help start a “internet grass roots” campaign. It’s something that will only happen if people want it to - I’m just pointing people in a direction I think is worthwhile.
It may take years - I’m convinced this is absolutely vital to do as much as I can at this time. The mood of society will do most of the work for me - I just need to let people know about alternatives to qm.
Eugene Morrow
I am not the type that goes out of my way merely to destroy something that I find less than perfect.
Destroying one merely leads to another and usually not the one you had in mind.
There is proposition A that leads to final situation A.
And there is proposition B that leads to situation B.
Proposition B is closer to Truth than A.
But is situation B really preferred over A?
How could one know until the total Truth is foreseen?
Until I an certain of the true consequences of my actions, why would I give them authority to cause them?
RM is a study of ALL affects and thus the only means to be certain of their consequences, else it wouldn’t be Rational.
James S Saint,
We are discussing your theory of physics that I will call James S Saint Rational Metaphysics (JSSRM). We compare that to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
Currently we are looking at the business of potentially replacing the current theory of physics (qm) with something else. Such a change would be a revolution of course.
You have commented on revolutions before when you said:
In your last post, you reminded me of unintended consequences to my actions:
Of course both of these quotes are true. I will grant some leeway to the founders of qm that they may have been less certain of qm and themselves than subsequent generations of physicists are today. I will also grant that none of us can be certain beforehand what the true consequences of our actions might be.
Surely that can work both ways - I don’t know the consequences of NOT taking action, and I must be equally responsible for them. I prefer to think about “what will I regret more - taking action or not”? That idea guides me, rather than the need to be 100% sure of the consequences afterwards.
You also said:
I like the idea that RM looks at the social effects of changing theories as well as the physics itself.
My answer is that surely looking at ALL effects is tremendously complex. For example, Europe has spend something like 7.5 billion euros between 1998 and 2008 on the Large Hadron Collider. The most often stated reason is the search for the Higgs boson.
From the TEW point of view, the money was not well spent. In TEW, the mass of a particle is related to the frequency of the elementary wave, so even if a Higgs particle is found it is not the solution to how particles get mass. So if TEW had been accepted by physics in 1996 when Lewis Little had a paper published in Physics Essays, Europe could have saved a lot money. Of course, Europe may have had other reasons for building the LHC, such as wanting to regain prestige in pure physics research that had been lost to the USA. So perhaps the money would have been spent anyway.
I still claim there is a moral case for finding the best theory - human society can direct efforts to the most rationally productive areas.
I have another example. Einstein was working at a patent clerk when he developed general relativity. Why? He couldn’t get the job he wanted as a physicist. You could make a case that an enlightened university should have given him a job, because the more work Einstein did the more benefit he could bring to physics and mankind.
I think the same applies to Lewis Little. I really believe he is up there with Copernicus, Newton and Einstein. Little has a Ph.D. in physics but is currently working in real estate, because no university would offer a job to someone who does not believe in qm. I want to encourage TEW to be adopted so that Little can earn his living doing physics. I really believe physics and mankind would be better off.
So for me. the priority is to help TEW get known. I believe that when enough people know about TEW it will gain a “critical mass” as an idea and replace qm, mainly due to TEW being a better theory and partly thanks to the mood change in society I am expecting.
Little is 71 - how much time have we got with him? I am taking action because I want to do as much as I can to help him become a full time physicist. If I let another 10 or 20 years go by and do nothing, I will regret I turned down a chance to help Little, and thereby help mankind. From my point of view, it’s the best time to take action, and not taking action will be more worrying to me than any bun-fight I might start.
I think you are being too cautious James. I am happy to give space to JSSRM too, because it helps get both physics and philosophy thinking about new theories of physics, rather than stick blindly to qm. I would prefer you published JSSRM as soon as you can, and start your own threads on forums to get more debate happening. I would be great to learn more and get more people looking at it.
We don’t just need a revolution in physics - we need science and society as a whole remembering that philosophy has a guiding role that is vitally important. At the moment people think a “philosophical discussion” means a waste of time, and that view needs to be challenged just as much as qm.
Eugene Morrow
RM includes a principle of dispersion that includes a principle of impedance. They are a part of the “Afflate Rules of Engagement”.
Impedance matching refers to the degree that one must match one affect to another (TEW to QM) in order to make maximum and most efficient progress. Dispersion refers to what happens based upon an impedance mismatch (progress or reflection and dispersion).
The end result of the equations involved is that it requires a specific amount of time to make progress by any attempt to affect another affect. When not enough time is given, trying too hard, reflection and dispersion take place possibility to the point of annihilation. When too much time is taken, too little effort, very little progress gets made and conversion or assimilation takes place rather than the intended progressive movement.
So the lesson is merely that in order to make a progressive change, the effort must be taken at a particular speed and vector, not too much and not too little. That balance is what homosapian has always failed at deriving with all social concerns and thus battles get won and lost in a mix of noise and confusion rather than a methodical progress toward a hopeful end. One cannot merely say, “GO FORWARD!!” nor “RETREAT!!”, but rather, move forward at this particular rate at this time. The importance of the end goal does NOT determine the rate (a common mistake), but rather the actual affect impedance matching involved.
These principles apply to physics interactions as well and are evident throughout physics.
“Unintended consequences” is the “reflection and/or dispersion” that comes from trying too hard and not being humble to the actual situation, the affectance picture. Although to get merely converted or assimulated could be called “unintended consequences” as well. The only way to accomplish any goal is through proper impedance matching - not too hard, not too gentle, and not thinking in terms of “important means trying harder”.
I can’t imagine Dr. Little or myself ever seeing much progress of our own efforts within our life time.
James S Saint,
We are discussing your theory of physics that I will call James S Saint Rational Metaphysics (JSSRM). We compare that to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
You are pointing out the challenge of choosing the right amount of action to take - avoiding the traps of too much or not enough. I believe it is a Buddhist idea too - the “middle way”.
I know I can never “make” someone believe in anything - they choose to believe themselves. I also know my limitations - I am neither a physicist or a philosopher - just an amateur at both. I know I am not even an expert at TEW. I have made mistakes in debating both on factual and communication issues.
My thinking is that TEW has been close to invisible to the physics world and related areas like engineering and philosophy. To me, the biggest weakness of TEW (and JSSRM) is that people are unaware of a choice. That is a big weakness - how many supporters might appear if people simply know about the new theory?
My goal is simply to get the message out there that TEW is a serious rival to qm. I have put posts on many physics forums, and this is the only philosophy forum. I answer questions, and debate where necessary. If there are no replies, then the thread is still there for people to read.
Of course it’s a humbling experience. On two physics forums, the administrators decided that TEW was “pseudo science” and shut down the thread. That’s to be expected - qm has taken on the role of “forcing” people to believe, and the followers police thinking very strongly. I don’t take it personally.
On two other forums, I have addressed the belief that qm has ‘proved’ a local and deterministic theory is impossible. I have pointed out that qm has an assumption on wave direction and TEW the opposite assumption, and this means the two theories cannot prove anything about each other. Normally the qm supporters were quick deny my points and reject TEW immediately after anything I posted. Once I pointed out that the qm ‘proof’ did not apply to TEW, the two threads went into a stunned silence.
I have reminded them that they can still choose qm and reject TEW - they will simply need other reasons. The debate on these two forums has stopped - which shows that some qm supporters are a bit lost for words when their favorite arguments are countered. I don’t think I have convinced anyone on those two forums - I have made them think more than before.
To me, the main benefit of these forums is what I call the “silent viewers”. Many people just browse through the debates and do not participate. I believe that some of them are people with open minds, who are well aware of the qm “thought police”. On a few forums, I have had debaters make occasional positive remarks about TEW, only to be shouted down by qm supporters. It’s the silent viewers who I want to reach. They are the people who might quietly get the book of TEW and read it - and might read JSSRM if there is a publication one day.
So my strategy means the debate content is almost irrelevant - I may be in a debate where I have a pack of qm supporters telling me TEW is wrong. That’s fine - it still lets the silent viewers know there is something to debate.
I believe TEW (and possibly JSSRM) are ideas whose time has come. I compare the qm “empire” to the Soviet Union just before collapse - it seemed almost impossible before it suddenly happened.
That fact that I am not an expert in either physics of philosophy is almost one of my points - it is qm that claims you have to be one of the elite to be heard. This is unhealthy and needs to be challenged in itself, even if I didn’t have a new theory to talk about. My goal is lead by example - dare to challenge qm. The internet is also the ideal place for such "secret criticism’ to start.
Am I overdoing it? I am only one person, and I would be surprised if I am making too much noise about TEW. I don’t take the abuse from some qm supporters seriously - it’s all part of the mix.
As for the risks of over versus under doing it, I would rather risk over doing it for now. I would rather regret trying too hard than feel I was lazy and missed a chance to help Lewis Little.
I think your approach is too rational James, - you are waiting for logic to win out. Sometimes it’s worth just getting out there are talking to people. The buzz of debate can make people more curious.
You finished you last post with some ominous words:
Firstly, I think that would be a tragedy - people like you and Lewis Little have new ideas that need to be heard while you are still alive.
Secondly, I think there is an obvious and understandable assumption in your words - that the rate of change of thinking will be much the same as it’s been all our lives (rather glacial). That’s where I go back to the point about socionomics, which argues that the “stability’” of thought in the western world has been because we’ve had a reasonable steady growing economy since the 1940s (a few hiccups along the way). Socionomics expects a world wide economic depression to start and bottom around 2016.
Of course there is suffering in world economic depressions. The good side is that people go “back to basics” and start questioning things. If ever there is a good time for new ideas like TEW and JSSRM, the next four years at least are going to be a much better time for winning supporters.
I hope you and Lewis Little get debated widely very soon. To me, it’s time for qm to feel a spotlight of scrutiny and be cross examined by everyone. Physics has forgotten that debate and philosophy are just as important as facts and successful predictions. I think it’s time for lots of debates - many more than my puny ones here.
Eugene Morrow
My hesitation hasn’t been merely due to expecting logic to make its own way, but rather a variety of other concerns as well. I am in the midst of trying to get academic appraisal and also still trying to get “the book” written. Both appear highly dubious at this point, but both also require that I not say too much online. In addition, unlike TEW, RM provides an advancement that leads to some rather dangerous prospects concerning weapons. “To whom do you give the plans for the ultimate weapon?”
So I am not quite as free to merely spew out the exacting truth of the matters at hand. But fortunately, I am not so tied that I can’t reveal the general nature and answer many of the fundamental questions involved.
The actual mathematics get rather tough in places. I had to come up with a new manner of math, “Afflate Analysis” just to get my little PC to understand how to handle issues of 200,000 simultaneous equations that had to be resolved at a rate of once per 30 seconds or so. The point of that exercise was to allow my PC to be the proof that the fundamental theory would “naturally” cause particles to form with ALL of the known properties that particles have. It took quite a while and some serious hair pulling and long nights, but I finally got it. Thus spawned my confidence.
James S Saint,
We are discussing your theory of physics that I will call James S Saint Rational Metaphysics (JSSRM). We compare that to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
I am wondering that since you coined the term Rational Metaphysics yourself, I should call your theory RM. Would that be appropriate?
Enough of my soap box evangelism about getting new theories heard. I was thinking that you are in the academic world, and so my relaxed approach may not be sensible. Perhaps RM supporters may take on my approach, but if there are weapons involved I wonder if large parts of RM will be kept mainly under wraps.
I want to ask more about your maths, although I don’t want to ask for actual equations.
My impression is that you stared with simply defining physics in terms of Definitional Logic, i.e. what we are sure exists. You have arrived at the idea that everything is made up of waves of affectance, which come together in stable arrangements. Why is everything made of the same basic stuff? I think it’s because of the famous E = mc squared and the conversions of some mass to energy during nuclear blasts. Is that right?
I then get the impression that waves of affectance have a lot of potential attributes, hence the many equations that your PC needs to process to get a full answer. Is that right?
How much are existing equations (like the one I mentioned) the starting points for the affectance equations? Perhaps instead the existing equations need to be derived from new affectance equations? I want to get an idea of where you started to get the affectance equations.
Are the equations for affectance waves universal for all particles, or do you develop separate equations for each particle?
I ask this because Lewis Little developed TEW by looking at reality and coming to the conclusion that the quantum wave travels in the opposite direction. From there, and the Reciprocity theorem, he could re-use the maths of qm to describe TEW. Little spends most of his book describing what the existing maths means using the new assumption about wave direction. TEW has much less emphasis on the maths, and much more on looking at reality.
For RM, I am guessing you have developed a totally new mathematical base, and had to retro-fit that to the existing equations found by experiments. Sounds like an enormously exhausting approach mathematically. The upside is that this will probably be very appealing to qm supporters, who like mathematical approaches to physics problems.
Eugene Morrow
I had been wondering why you had chosen not to in the first place. 
You weren’t calling anything LLTEW. 
Nope. Not at all. I began by defining rational issues of existence such as to form an epistemology. In turn, that epistemology led to an principle ontology. That theoretical ontology led to a metaspace revealing a full and complete actualization of sub-atomic physics, clearly indicating that I had completely cracked the mystery.
It’s actually a little backwards. I arrived at the notion that all things are made of the same “stuff”, affectance" because there is absolutely no choice in the matter via, Definitional Logic within RM. I discovered that the E=mc^2 issue happens to be close to being true (it is merely an approximation). No experimenting on my part was necessary.
Emmm… the attributes/properties of an afflate… If I remember right, there were around 10 specific independent properties for an Afflate (a particular tensor field element). The issue was that there has to be a great number of them within a given space merely to describe space with any degree of accuracy. I used 200,000 of them within a space of somewhere around a 100 pico-meter cubed. Having done that, I could watch as particles formed and displayed their behavior for revue.
Realize that I didn’t start off with the presumption that a particle or mass existed at all.
As far as the distinguishable or independent properties of affectance itself… I would have to think about that a bit, but there wouldn’t be very many at all, maybe 3 or 4. Sometimes it gets difficult to word things properly so as to maintain epistemological coherence.
Zero.
Now your gettn it.
I am that famed “second witness” outside the establishment that didn’t derive his thoughts based upon their assumptions (applies to religion as well).
It starts by defining existence itself Existence Meaningfully Defined. From that definition the issue of “affect” becomes paramount to all existence and from that issue, came the name “affectance” - the most fundamental property of all existence.
Now from the idea of affect comes the idea of propagation of affect involving time and distance. Both time and distance (dimensions) are CAUSED by affectance. That causal relationship is why they ran into “relativity”. As affectance changes in density, what they now call “spacetime” is altered because it is only from the affectance field that time and space exist in the first place. This is what led them to the observation that a mass field seems to alter time and distance - “general relativity”. The difference is that they seem to have no idea why.
Dr Little is trying to “reverse engineer” reality (as is all of physics and Science).
I designed it (again) from scratch (Metaphysics).
Actually it is more a new measurement base (still requiring serious effort to translate into their sloppy metric system). I merely came up with a single new means to do math for sake of the practicality of having to resolve so many simultaneous equations and interactive concerns - Afflate Analysis.
Afflate Analysis and Quantum Mechanics have some significant things in common, but RM never presumes that all of reality must fit into the notion of quanta. RM is merely more conceptually and mathematically precise and fully explains all of the things that QM can’t explain without going into fantasy. RM can prove why particles have only specific sizes and thus “quantized”. But that proof has nothing to do with length or time being quantum units. Length, time, and energy are NOT quantized. There is no actual Plank length or time.
James S Saint,
We are discussing your theory of physics called Rational Metaphysics (RM). We compare that to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
Once RM defines everything and has some basic ground rules, it seems that RM is dominated by mathematics. The number of variables and parameters is so high that for sufficiently complex interactions you may not have had a computer big enough to do the calculations yet. Surely there is a chance that when the RM equations are applied to larger examples, that there may be mismatches between reality and the maths results? I am wondering if RM is accepted by enough scientists, there will be a need to test it against larger and larger data models.
I am thinking of attempting to prove that RM is internally consistent with itself. In mathematics, there are theorems about this sort of thing. Have you considered this sort of issue?
Of course, qm and TEW cannot “prove” they are internally consistent either. I am thinking that RM has more internal maths, and so runs a higher risk of chaos and being impossible to verify.
You also made a remark about the limitations of the metric system. Does RM prefer complex numbers? I know that complex numbers are useful simply to allow normal calculations of velocity and acceleration where the position might be given as a negative number relative to some reference point. I am more asking what number system might be more useful for RM if it’s not the international metric system?
On the opposite side, now that you have developed the affectance equations, how often do you need to go back to Definitional Logic to define new entities and new equations?
I have one concern about all the maths in RM. The trap for String Theory has been that it is too flexible - String Theory could prove anything, and so it proves nothing. Is this a risk for RM?
As we found in our discussion about TEW, there are issues of mechanism that need to be answered some day. RM appears to have has no real issues with mechanism, because everything appears to be based on modeling what happens in reality. Have the equations of RM suggested some mechanisms that were previously unknown?
Eugene Morrow
The only need to test larger data models is to test larger portions of reality (molecules rather than sub-atom particles). The fundamental principles not only don’t change, but can’t. With larger models, one might find other interesting principles (I would hope), but the fundamental principles of reality cannot change merely because a larger model was assembled, else that same model would have to be disassembled.
That is one of the 3 very essential qualities of RM;
- consistency
- comprehensiveness
- relevance - “rationality”
Without internal consistency, any theory is worthless.
“more maths” is probably the wrong term. The issue is merely that any one model of even a very small item, such as an electron, requires a great many data points (points of consideration) so as to ensure accuracy. The issue is merely accuracy in the calculations, not the principles. The principles are not very complex or numerous and never change regardless of size or compounding complexity issues.
The “metric system” is not a “number system”, but a standard for measurements. I was saying that their standard is very sloppy compared to RM’s standard. If you try to find the standard for a length such as a meter, you end up with a physical example as the definitive standard. The problem is that in RM, that physical example is HUGE and certainly not very definitive. In RM, the standards are based on conceptual qualities, not physical examples. Physics tries to compare one perceived object to another and thus is trapped into the issue of relativity.
Explaining how to assemble standards of measure is somewhat like trying to explain epistemology in that it can be cumbersome for a novice.
For example, in RM, affect is the prime concept and issue. Affect comes in basically 3 qualities;
- degree/magnitude of potential affect (amount of static change potential)
- time of affect (amount of relative change potential)
- direction of affect (expressed as a 3-dimensional tensor array)
Thus affect is a “spread vector” (a fanned out spread of directed influence over time).
RM basically starts Science all over with all new methods of defining standard measurements. The units of measure are arbitrarily chosen absolute constants. RM doesn’t need relativity, but can explain why physicists do. RM involves absolute time and distance measured in “tacs” and "toe"s, “time affectance constant” and “travel of effect”.
But because RM uses philosophically pure constants, there arises a problem in trying to convert to the physics measurements that are merely comparisons of objects. RM begins before the very notion of an object has come onto the scene. Time and distance are exactly defined in RM, whereas in physics they are presumed and comparative attributes that are at times, redefined based upon someone’s mythological ontology such as “string theory”.
Any time that there arises a new construct of interest that hasn’t been already defined. A “particle” for example, was not defined until long after RM was largely developed. But since a particle is of interest to physics, it had to be identified by giving it a definition. I ended up with 3 levels of particle formation; Afflate, Biafflate, Triafflate, and Particulate. All can be considered under the general category of “primary particle” (as opposed to particulate constructs such as an atom or molecule).
RM can only prove what exists. It already has proven basic concepts concerning physics. Those can never change regardless of what physicists might decide to think. But as mentioned before, RM also applies to all realms of Science. The only way for RM to change is by changing the definitions of the terms being used, but the concepts can never change (nor do they have need).
I’m not certain what you are asking. But just guessing…
RM explains the “mechanism” behind the strong and weak forces just for example. It also explains the mechanisms behind charge attraction, gravity, propagation, Impedance, Inductance,… you name it. ALL of the "why"s, the “mechanisms” behind ALL of physics is fully explained in detail.
Now when it comes to that double slit experiment, the problem is merely one of not really having all of the information involved that could be provided, but just isn’t. To me it is a bit like watching a magic show and then someone asking “well, how does science explain THAT one!?” Well, obviously more details need to be known if Science is going to get involved. The same is true with RM. To RM, Science is somewhat on the level of “a magic show” that the participants don’t even understand. The “trick” is merely within their own minds.
James S Saint,
We are discussing your theory of science, physics and everything called Rational Metaphysics (RM). We compare that to quantum mechanics (qm) and the new Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) in the field of physics.
As usual, there are heaps of things to discuss. I am still asking broad questions for a while, before I get into more detailed examples.
Question 14: Empty space.
In TEW, empty space has elementary waves coming from all directions. I get the impression RM is similar here. In qm, there is creation of particle and anti-particle pairs constantly, and they cancel each other out. TEW rejects the particle pairs, and hence rejects Hawking radiation. Where is RM on empty space?
Question 15: Big Bang.
Not part of qm, most physicists believe in the Big Bang for the start of the current universe we are in. Dr. Little rejects this, and I infer one of the reasons is that the universe could not have started with a Big Bang because all the particles in the explosion would be following elementary waves which would have to be already present. Does RM has an opinion on the Big Bang?
Question 16: Missing Mass of the Universe and “Dark Matter”.
Not part of qm, most physicists believe that galaxies do not have enough mass to hold all the stars in the beautiful orbits that we see in spiral galaxies. Dr. Little says that this is based on a big assumption that mass is the force that is holding galaxies together. Dr. Little claims that the electromagnetic force is a much better candidate, and accounts for the shape of galaxies much better. On pages 134 -135 of the TEW book, Dr. Little mentions a Sweedish scientist Hannes Alfven who has used the electromagnetic force to explain many phenomena. Does RM has an opinion on “Dark matter” and the Missing Mass?
Eugene Morrow