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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
RM reveals that there is absolutely no alternative to the notion that “empty space” cannot be empty at all. But rather than speaking of waves, RM refers to “noise” because of the chaotic or randomness of the waves within that space. Thus RM has to depart from the TEW notion of coherent waves of any kind pervading the empty space, and reveals what are more like a chaos of random wave bits.
The radiation issue coming from black holes is a bit complicated, but fully coherent within RM. Any space of sufficient affectance density will spawn particles. That cannot be avoided. But they are not spawned as pairs that annihilate. Annihilation certainly occurs as both positive and negative particles get randomly produced, but they are not paired in any way. In addition, it is not necessary to have particle annihilation so as to produce EM radiation or photons.
RM reveals that it is totally impossible that time and physically began at any Big Bang. But after that assertion is where you might need to go back to speaking of “JSSRM” because RM itself isn’t developed enough to state whether any actual Big Bang ever took place and RM speaks only of what is absolutely and necessarily true.
So as my own speculation stemming from RM, I have to say that the notion of a Big Bang occurring is likely. Avoiding such an occurrence would be rather difficult. But that is in no way a claim that what is seen out there as our universe is the result of such an occurrence.
JSSRM states that black-holes, if they exist at all, are no more than very, very, very large single particles. In my metaspace, I accidentally produced such a particle that simply kept growing until it exploded. It exploded because it had formed with a spin too great to be stable for the ambient affectance in which it was born. Further, a “white-hole” is simply a black-hole that happens to have a charge and spin such that it aberrantly produces a magnetic field and spews light and particles out two ends while still attracting mass in toward its equator.
If a Big Bang actually did occur, it is easy to speculate that such black-holes colliding at tremendous velocity would have been the cause. While still isolated very far from other large masses, a black-hole can form and spend trillions of years gathering mass and momentum, soaking up “dark matter”. Eventually other black holes gradually begin to gravitate toward it. Now imagine what would happen if such unimaginably huge masses were to keep gaining velocity toward each other. The Eternal Universe - An Ocean of Motion.
I don’t really know by what means they speculate the mass of a black hole in the center of a galaxy, but assuming that they have a reasonable means and deduce that there isn’t sufficient amount to maintain the orbiting solar systems, then I have to wonder by what means they speculate that an additional dark matter would help the cause. If they are saying that they expect dark matter to be within the sphere of the galaxy and thus be helping to pull the solar systems together, I can assure you that they are at least partly correct.
JSSRM states the dark matter is merely a region of space wherein the affectance density is high but not high enough to produce substantial particulate fusion. From that region of space, both electric charge and gravitational mass will be apparent, although I suspect that in most cases the electric charge from the region would be small based on the notion that if it wasn’t very small, it would quickly disseminate at maximum speed into other regions.
The more neutral mass of the dark matter field would not have as much incentive to leave the area although without particulation, it would eventually disseminate also. Although it is quite possible that the black hole in the center of the galaxy is the beginning of that particulation and it merely hasn’t had enough time to absorb the entire dark matter affectance field. The particulate matter; dust, rocks, planets, and even stars, will take longer to absorb than the dark matter in that they have inertia directed around the center rather than straight toward the center. This is an unavoidable situation.
So the electric theory is weak even though it is referring to a stronger field. It is because the field would be stronger, that such a field would more readily dissipate into a neutral mass field. But again, this is merely JSSRM, not RM speaking now. RM hasn’t been developed enough to speak much on cosmology, but when it does, there won’t be any mysteries.
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.
Thanks for your answers on the more unusual issues of questions 14 to 16. I want to start talking more about affectance itself, as it is so central to RM.
Question 17: Affectance clumping
My understanding is that everything in the universe is made of affectance, and even empty space has some random “noise” of affectance. What makes affectance clump together to form particles that are stable? I am getting the impression that some random “noise” can clump into a particle at any time, and the particle may be stable for long periods of time. Is this a significant source of particles in the universe?
Question 18: Affectance dispersion
My understanding is that affectance can disperse, and hence leave a particle. This is happening all the time and is balanced by incoming affectance. Are there cases where the outgoing wins over and the particle spontaneously disappears? Is this a significant source of loss of particles in the universe?
Question 19: Black holes
You mentioned that RM is not complete in this area yet:
Is there a point where a Black Hole must explode and disperse? Conversely, could you argue that the entire universe might one day be absorbed into the ultimate Black Hole? Could this be a cycle - lots of galaxies and energy is slowly absorbed into one black hole, which explodes into another mixture of galaxies and energy?
Question 20: Light
One of the longest running debates in physics has been about light. Originally it was particles in Newton’s time. Then it was waves for a while. Then Einstein said particle again because of the photo electric effect. Then qm said it was both - the photon particles are also waves. TEW claims that light is particles (photons) that are following elementary waves.
My understanding is that RM says that photons are made of affectance. How does RM account for the wave properties of light?
That is the only source of particles in the universe.
What makes them clump together is simply the issue of velocity. In a dense affectance field, the noise/waves cannot propagate as fast as in a less dense field. The end result of this is that the noise spends more time in the dense region. But because each bit of noise entering that region is spending more time within that region, that region gets even more dense. That effect increases in an exponential fashion. The end effect is that a center of high density (“center of mass”) is naturally formed. That effect relates to the inverse squared attraction issue between particles that have already formed. But the affectance field must be dense enough to initiate such particlization, else a center is never actualized and the affectance shifts around in another direction. If the ambient is not dense enough, a center will never form and thus no particle will form.
Einstein and crew extrapolated the inverse square gravitational attraction equation in order to speculate that the aberrant center of such a particle mass must approach infinite mass density. But that isn’t the way it works. The equation is a little more complicated such as to cause a reduction in attraction once a bit of noise gets within what you could call the boundaries of the particle. There is no finite boundary, but there is a rather sudden increase of affectance density along a radial line toward the center of the particle. That sudden increase is where we select the notion of an edge. But within that boundary, the affectance density no longer keeps increasing as it gets closer to the center, but rather levels out to a maximum.
Every particle (and every entity) has an “entropic shell” which is the ultimate cause of its quantized size and stability. But don’t get the notion that even particles of the same type have the exact same size or shape. What goes on within the entropic shell gets rather complex because the particle is constantly adjusting to its environment, the shifting ambient affectance. That adjusting is what gives it stability. A particle at any one time might be basically spheroidal, but more often will be flattened, especially if it has developed spin. A particle is an “affectance oblate”, an “Afflate”, with the particular property of a stable entropic shell. But what is going on inside is constantly in a state of flux and shifting. A particle is not a hard, solid object as it is often depicted.
That is the only source of loss of a particle. But it is not so easy to arrange without collision of another particle. The ambient field density must be reduced very substantially in order to shift the entropic shell close enough to the center such as to prevent reestablishment of the particle. In the case of a particle venturing to an extreme point in space, perhaps the space between galaxies where the vacuum is extremely low and the affectance field density is extremely low, the particle will certainly lose more than it had been prior and thus reduce in size. If kept in such an extreme void, I would expect it to eventually simply dissipate and disappear. But realize that the converse is also true.
If the ambient density is increased substantially (very substantially), the particle will gain more than it had been gaining and grow in size. That situation can lead to the famed black-hole because it has no upper limit for its size other than how much affectance is in the entire region. After gathering almost all of the mass within a region, an entropic shell is formed wherein the particle is stable again as it loses the same as it gains.
It is impossible that the “entire universe” could ever do such a thing. Infinity is simply too large. Even after 10 ^1000 years go by, some parts of the universe wouldn’t have yet got the message that we had our little “personal universe” of a paltry few trillion galaxies. But that doesn’t mean that within a region, such an event can’t occur.
A black hole cannot stay stable indefinitely simply because nothing in the universe is ever truly alone. In addition, no matter how alone a black hole might be, there is always another one on its way. There are 2 reasons for a black hole to explode. It might, in its inner fluxing and adjusting mentioned above, split its entropic shell. That event would create extreme instability within the separate segments which then, in a chain reaction, do the same thing. The other cause of such an explosion would be simply the collision of another extremely large mass such as another black/white hole. I would expect such events to be regular but spanning quadrillions of years.
Interestingly, I can envision a very quick learning species, unlike homosapian, that could actually arrange a stable local universe with a somewhat fixed entropic shell that would last eternally or at least long enough to encounter some higher form of destruction not yet foreseeable. But a species lasting some 10 ^500 years shouldn’t really have much to complain about, not from our perspective anyway.
What is being called a “photon of light” is merely an “almost-particle”. In the particle formation process there is a certain point where inertia gets created. But if at that point, the afflate is traveling away from any increase of affectance, it never actualizes the inertia and continues to speed away at “the speed of light”. But because of its “almost-enough” state (specifically due to the frequency of the noise involved), the photon can still maintain itself as a type of fixed entity with its own entropic shell, and thus an “almost particle”, right at the edge of having inertia.
Interestingly, when a photon travels across extreme distances, there is little choice but for the average noise wavelength of the photon to increase, elongate. Thus any photon seen from many light years away will be “red shifted” simply due to how long it has been traveling, the “red-eyed” effect. That effect cannot totally replace the Doppler red-shift effect, but it certainly adds to it. Thus many of the calculations and speculations concerning speed and distance of far away galaxies, are a bit skewed. If a photon were allowed to travel far enough, it would eventually no longer be able to sustain its entropic shell and dissipate into merely a spreading radiant wave, no longer a photon.
So I guess that my answer to your question is that a photon is a noise wave that is almost a particle but can be talked out of it easier than talked into it.
Something a little interesting that most people don’t realize is that the “empty space” between your eye and anything you can see, close or very far away, is always filled with an extreme number of photons that simply are not traveling straight into your eye. For every photon you see, there are trillions that are right in front of you that you can’t see. You are smothered in an ocean of photon soup all the time and even in the “vacuum” of space.
As an indication of the range of subject matter that RM includes, realize that the ego is a particle. That particle is subject to the same laws as a sub-atomic particle. Buddhism exactly focuses on arranging the afore mentioned extremely low affectance field surrounding the ego in its practice of meditation on nothingness and void of desire so as to eliminate the ego, the “self”. The ego ends up dissipating into a wider field of affectance sensed as “enlightenment” because it allows for the additional processes and awareness functions within the mind to participate in the inner adjusting of the entire mind’s assessment or vision of its situation. The entire mind is still a particle, merely a more all inclusive particle with a wider entropic shell.
But also realize that Buddhism itself is merely another particle, a social particle, again subject to the same principles. Any and every religion and government are social particles subject to the same laws of affectance entropy. Every gathering can be, and will be eventually dissipated due to the affectance void it forms surrounding it, even the “Borg”. There is but a single entity that can avoid such a fate. That entity is rather interesting and is what has been sought by Man throughout his existence. RM details its structure which can be applied on many of the more complex levels of entities, but not upon fundamental physics particles.
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.
I continue to be fascinated by the audacity of RM - this is the most comprehensive attempt at a Theory of Everything that I have seen. I am a strong supporter of TEW, which stops short (for now) of describing the inner dynamics of physics particles and has no analysis of social particles, for example.
You’ve been giving really good broad descriptions of how RM works. I want to pursue more detailed questions on light.
Question 21: The double slit experiment versus photo electric effect.
How does RM explain how light works in these two experiments? In the double slit experiment we are seeing the wave nature of light, with interference patterns produced (whether there is one photon at at time or many). In the photoelectric effect, the frequency of the incoming light (not the intensity) determines if electrons are ejected from a material, and most physicists claim this is best explained by light being particles.
For TEW, the explanation of the double slit starts with the elementary waves traveling from the detector or screen first backwards towards the source of photons, and the wave interfere after the slits. The photons are stimulated by the waves that reach the source and follow the waves that stimulated them back to the detector. There are all the issues we covered in earlier posts.
For TEW, the photo-electric effect is an “inelastic” collision of incoming elementary waves with the elementary waves that are the orbitals around some atoms. The incoming elementary waves carry photons inwards. I have not seen a detailed treatment of which elementary wave the electrons follow when they leave the atom - it could be the same elementary wave that the photons traveled along, or it could be the elementary wave of the orbital now moving outwards and no longer orbiting the atom. In either case, the photons and electrons always follow and elementary wave. The frequency of the incoming photon is clearly the issue that makes the collision inelastic (photo electric effect) or elastic (no effect).
In summary, TEW claims the elementary waves show the wave nature of light and the photons themselves show the particle nature of light. The frequency of the light is claimed by TEW to be related to the elementary wave carrying the light, so both effects come originally from the elementary wave itself. As usual, the explanation is local and deterministic.
For qm, the photons are both particles and waves at the same time, so light can show both wave and particle properties. The qm explanations are non-local, of course.
How does RM cover light showing both wave and particle behavior?
Note: I am getting married tomorrow, so I will be absent from this discussion for two days. The honeymoon is later, and there will be some gaps then. I still want to continue this discussion, and my bride has agreed I can logon sometimes during our honeymoon, so there should never be a gap that is longer than 3 days.
Rational Metaphysics addresses the unquestionable principles of reality itself. Those principles cannot change merely because someone decides that people or economics is a separate field of study than physics.
First, both RM and TEW express that the pattern that is being seen is one of DISPERSION, not wave interference (as explained prior). In TEW the cause of the dispersion involves EW interference presented at the particle source, but the final pattern at the screen is explained as the aberrant dispersal pattern due to EW phase interference at the source. RM also explains that any time anyone is dealing with single particle emission, the issue will always be one of dispersion, not interference.
The double-slit experiment began long ago as an issue of probable light wave interference patterns on the screen. But as soon as they found a means to produce single photons and/or electrons yet saw the same pattern, it should have been (and probably was) obvious to the observers, that it was not an issue of wave interference. That does not mean that when a spew of photons is produced, they don’t create wave interference, but the pattern seen is going to be there anyway.
QM seems to be an attempt to keep the mystery going by coming up with fascinating speculations involving time reversal and dual locality. But intelligent people are not looking for the mystery that you seem to think is being displayed.
As stated before, RM cannot speak on that particular experiment simply because too much information is being kept “behind the curtain” and to simulate the experiment in RM’s metaspace so as to prove for certain exactly what was going on would require a HUGE computer that I don’t personally have. So RM is not ready to comment on that experiment (as I stated earlier).
JSSRM leans toward the idea that photons and particles are being unevenly distributed merely due to the edge encounter issues as expressed earlier. Although I have never heard of single photons causing that dispersal pattern and am a little skeptical that such has actually been witnessed.
In RM, a photon is merely a pulse of affectance that is of sufficient frequency (ramp rate) that the pulse can manage to maintain a vague entropic shell, or maintain its form for a great distance. The rate of change in affectance density causes the ability to maintain a geometric form. So a light photon is perhaps the weakest of all particles that still lacks inertia/momentum in the physics sense. If that rate of change, the derivative of the potential to affect, is high enough, inertia will be formed and an actual inertial particle will be initiated. This principle also applies to psychology, sociology, and economics.
Wow.
I don’t know whether to advise you to seriously hold onto a woman like that or be very suspicious.
So let me give you both a congratulations and my condolences, just to cover the bases.
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. Sometimes you have some personal speculations that extend RM, which we call JSSRM (James S Saint Rational Metaphysics).
I like the idea that RM is a method of analyzing reality, and can apply to any reality. I believe many areas of study need a standard, comprehensive method to analyze their part of reality and I welcome candidate for that. I like finding ways in which philosophy can assert itself in science and the arts where it has been forgotten or treated as unimportant. I hope and believe that the 21st century will be when philosophy suddenly becomes center stage once again. I would like to go to coffee shops and hear a buzz of philosophy. Dreams are fun.
When I mention that there is a new theory (TEW) to consider in physics, everyone wants to hear about the double slit experiment first, perhaps because Richard Feynman pointed out that the entire mystery of quantum mechanics is in the double-slit experiment. So RM needs to have an analysis of that experiment by the time RM is published.
Question 22: Given a big enough computer, what other information does RM need to analyze the double slit?
I am thinking of a simple setup of the double slit with a single photon traversing the device at a time, with an interference pattern (or dispersion pattern) building up slowly on the detector. Forgive me if you have covered this before - I want to cover light in more detail this time.
Placing extra detectors in the slits does alter the observed pattern somewhat, but still keeps the essential result, so we can determine which slit the photon passed through. That result should have rocked qm, because qm believes that photon goes through both slits (because it is a wave as well). The result is consistent with TEW, because TEW claims waves go through both slits in the opposite direction, and a single photon follows only one wave through one slit.
I believe RM needs to design the experiment that yields the extra information and to perform the calculations necessary to give a complete analysis. Without this, I believe physics will ignore RM (and they ignore TEW even though TEW does have an analysis with issues).
Questions 23: if a photon accumulates enough affectance, what is the smallest inertial particle that can form?
You wrote:
I am wondering if RM claims that a photon could turn into any particle with enough affectance. I am thinking of the inertial particle that can form with the least extra affectance added to a photon.
Question 24: Half lives of isotopes of elements
Has RM been able to verify the half life times of isotopes of any elements? If so, I am fascinated whether the stability of isotopes makes sense from an affectance accumulation/dispersion point of view. Is there a clear reason indicated by the equations in RM?
The guests at our wedding laughed and commented how they had never seen such a keen groom, and my bride’s tolerance of my interest in physics and philosophy is a very minor reason. We had wonderful luck with the weather and a few logistical stuff-ups which others sorted on their own initiative. Thanks for the wise words that cover all bases.
All religions are a PR game of protecting their image of superior knowledge (a social Ego) and thus disdain any and all counter arguments. Even if RM exactly pointed out what was happening, it would still not be welcomed. These days, people might even die merely from the argumentation against the established authority image. People haven’t changed in how they enact their insanity, merely with what they use as tools.
If your own subconscious were trying to tell you that TEW had a serious problem, your conscious would probably never sense it because your mind works such as to protect any potentially guiding thought or paradigm of hope. The parallel is that your subconscious is merely people like you and I attempting to inform the supporters of QM and society that they might be wrong. They don’t want to hear it on even a low order social scale and thus the higher order influential people will seldom even hear that you or I ever said anything at all on the subject.
In RM, this effect is covered in Impedance Matching. It is also covered in Judaism and the Kabbalah.
You are right in that RM must present irrevocable evidence (as would any new proposal challenging the established paradigm). I am not so sure that the double-slit experiment is the one to approach and reveal.
As to what I need so as to explicate the entire matter besides a much larger computer is merely the actual data already acquired, the materials and particle types used and in what arrangements. It is possible that I could resolve the entire issue even without RM if I had access to the real data that has been accumulated to date. Differing arrangements of slits (curved slits, crossed slits, doubled slit-screens and such) and distances to the screen and source can tell a lot, yet those experiments don’t seem to get much advertising.
To me it is apparent, although not necessarily so, that the double slit experiment is merely a PR game to stir fascination and that real Science has no actual question in the matter. But I have to admit that homosapian has been confused in the past even on some pretty simple matters, so who really knows if this display is merely a PR game or an actual mystery.
The “smallest particle” issue is addressed below.
The effort to actually cause a “normal space” photon to become a mass particle would be pretty serious. It would involve the attempt to control the exact angle and phasing of collision of multiple photons such as to dispermit any potential angle of radiance.
Alternatively, if one can arrange a high density affectance field, it would be difficult to prevent a photon from becoming a particle automatically. The problem with that is trying to determine that it really was a photon before it became particle. The speed of such reactions is literally at the speed of light. Even knowing that a photon is present without absorbing it is an issue. Most likely what would be seen is that seemingly out of nowhere, a particle appeared. Its constituents would always be invisible to any observer and left to the speculation concerning the environment.
It might work to merely flood an otherwise vacuous space with a tremendous number of photons with the statistical hope that eventually the right arrangement would spawn a particle, but knowing that it actually had might be tough.
In RM such an occurrence would be more than obvious and frankly could have been predicted thousands of years ago (by a very serious genius).
RM’s very foundation implies a probability of instability concerning all existence. The parameters involved include the proximity of particles and thus the nucleus of an atom is fertile ground for instability. It would merely be a matter of statistics as to when a split would occur. So that issue is of no surprise at all in RM. The famous nuclear chain-reaction would also be very predictable and expected in the right environment.
RM involves the very foundation of reality itself and has been developed to the point of being able to predict the necessary existence of every potential particle found in physics. But at this time, the “Rosetta Stone” to convert RM entities and measurement into which entities that physics has labeled with names has yet to be fully developed (this addresses your question concerning “the smallest particle”).
Again, a larger computer would help but also better mathematicians and programmers getting involved. RM could keep Science busy for quite a number of years reassessing their entire presumptuous paradigm. The end result would yield truly unquestionable knowledge (actual “Science”) of exactly how and why ALL physical reality on all levels exists.
Well congrats, but just remember that corruption begins with discomfort and indecision (suspicion ).
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. Sometimes you have some personal speculations that extend RM, which we call JSSRM (James S Saint Rational Metaphysics).
I’m well aware of what psychologists call “confirmation bias” where we look for evidence to confirm our existing beliefs, and overlook evidence that conflicts. Lewis Little made a really good point once when he said he doesn’t want to find a new experiment that shows qm makes no sense - because qm will just invent a new form of weirdness to cover it and add to their collection !
Avoiding confirmation bias is why I have been careful to allow space for and acknowledge issues with TEW. Who knows? Perhaps I’ll convert to RM later on. Overturning qm is the first step, and hopefully in the turmoil the physics world might start to think once more.
Your description of photons potentially accumulating affectance and becoming a particle with mass brings home the idea of conservation of affectance that you’ve mentioned before. Conservation of energy is clearly related to that. I like the clear picture of affectance underpinning what we see.
While RM works at a far more fundamental level underneath both qm and TEW, I like to think there is more compatibility between TEW and RM than qm and RM. For example, the elementary waves that travel in the opposite direction to the particles in TEW are allowed for in RM because affectance waves can travel in all directions.
I can see that TEW and RM part company with the mechanics of elementary waves having markers and sometimes colliding with each other, as we discussed before. I realize now that we need to talk about affectance waves more.
I want to ask “what are affectance waves?” but you have already said they are undetectable. What I really need to ask is about what behavior of affectance waves has become apparent in RM. I’ll do that with some specific questions.
Question 25: Are affectance waves traveling in a medium? (Probably not, but I should ask.)
In TEW, the elementary waves are definitely NOT in a medium, and this results in relativity being compatible with TEW, to the point that TEW predicts special relativity.
Question 26: Are affectance waves similar to a sine wave - a regular change backwards and forwards in some attribute? Another way of asking that is whether affectance waves can produce chaotic, discontinuous changes or steady rises and falls (up to maximum and down to minimum values).
TEW claims that elementary waves are a regular change backwards and forwards. The flux is always there in the universe, whether the waves encounter a mass or not. The big issue is the markers that each wave carries. Interactions with masses change those markers, and the markers result in a lot of the particle effects we see.
Question 27: Are the different attributes of affectance waves changing at the same rate together?
My knowledge of TEW is not good enough to precisely summarize elementary waves on this question for now.
Question 28: Is it possible for a region of space to have zero affectance for a while?
For TEW, it is impossible for there to be a point in the universe without elementary waves.
I am going on my honeymoon tomorrow. There are some days of rain forecast, which will probably be days when my wonderful wife will be comfortable with me going to an internet cafe for an hour or two and continuing this discussion. So I have the perfect honeymoon - either exploring a sub-tropical island with my wife or catching up on the latest philosophical adventures. I win either way !
A feature of Science is that any theory that conforms to, or can be confirmed by, the “Scientific Method” automatically becomes Science. Rational Metaphysics has a similar feature in that any theory that is consistent, comprehensive, and relevant to the construct of existence, is automatically Rational Metaphysics. In a sense, all of Science is merely a subset of RM in the same way that Mathematics is merely a subset of Logic.
The term “Affectance” is hardly an arbitrary term. It refers to all affects of any kind within a region. Any affecting, any changing, taking place within a region is defined as the affectance within that region. Psychology uses the same term when referring to any affects upon an infant.
What RM calls affectance is almost identical to what physics refers to as energy and once referred to as “the aether”. Affectance is the most fundamental medium of existence because it is existence itself from which all physical entities are formed. The noise and waves of the affectance create observable forms to which physics gives names such as an “electron”. What Science couldn’t realize years ago was that their “aether” was not merely a medium in which other things traveled, but a medium of which all things were made. That difference is related to why the Michelson-Morley experiment was flawed in its conception.
The motion of a particle is merely the epicenter of the noise relocating. The causes of such relocating of the noise epicenter is what physics labels as “forces”; electric/magnetic, gravitation, weak, and strong. In RM, such “forces” are merely the aberrant effect of noise accumulation and dissemination such as to re-center a particle. The insistence of a particle to relocate is detected as a “force”. Because it is often relocating due to a nearby particle, the force is said to be “between” the particles or “emanating from” a particle. It could be said that the nearby Capitalist government (a social particle) is “forcing” the Communism government to relocate even though a government isn’t a physical entity.
The changing of the potential to affect, Ap, is what causes and forms affectance, Af, and its waves. Mathematically affectance is the first derivative with respect to time of the potential to affect, Af = Ap/δt and “an affectance wave” Aw = Af/δt or Ap/δt² (2nd derivative of Ap). Such changing of potential must always exist in even the most infinitesimal regions. This fact can be known simply because of the impossibility of infinite homogeneity of any potential. But the scientific method is useless in any attempt to prove such an impossibility. It must be realized from the simple logic involved (hence “Rational Metaphysics” instead of physics).
Fundamental affectance is always in the form of statistical, Gaussian noise. But regions of rising or falling noise levels produce waves, waves of the noise. It is those waves that physics calls “electromagnetic waves”. Those waves can be sinusoidal, but never perfectly so. Nothing physical can ever be a perfect geometric form. And the noise from which those waves are formed could never be sinusoidal. And discontinuity is another impossibility.
But what physics calls “chaos” is actually a higher level of fundamental affectance noise. Physics’ chaos is formed by the waves of noise being random in magnitude and direction. So there are three levels of concern to create detectable chaos; affectance noise field, waves within that field, and random distribution of those waves. Of course that was assuming that particles were not involved, which would add another level.
I’m not sure what that question is asking, but my temptation is to say “no”. The affectance noise might develop a wave of that noise but one wave has nothing to do with any other unless they are converging. The convergence of affectance is an interesting field of study that can give a statistician a serious headache. He would have to deal with the changing of the changing in three dimensions and three directions of two fields. It constitutes two converging tensor fields of noise with one very special added feature that I won’t mention just yet involving the actual cause of mass/inertia.
Absolutely not. No affectance means no space, no dimensions, no time, nothing whatsoever, true total non-existence and thus no “spacetime”. There can be no holes in reality itself (unless you are a Doctor Who fan).
Something else that you are probably going to have to face is that RM can fully explain all sub-atomic phenomena without any magic markers involved.
Btw, it would be wise to store a copy of this discussion on your PC and any others.
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. Sometimes you have some personal speculations that extend RM, which we call JSSRM (James S Saint Rational Metaphysics).
Thank you for the detailed answers - this is a big help to understanding.
I need to clarify :
Question 27: Are the different attributes of affectance waves changing at the same rate together?
I haven’t had a chance to re-read your earlier posts in detail, but I remember that affectance has some attributes or different types. What I am asking is that if a certain type of affectance builds up at one point, can that type change into another type of affectance? I guess I’m asking if there is conservation of types of affectance. I hope this sounds sensible question.
Your claimed this:
That’s a biggie. You definitely need a treatment of the double slit experiment. I want to give you a quick idea of what I mean. When you have a single slit, there is a dispersion pattern on the screen or detector. When you have two slits and lots of particles going through you get a clear interference pattern - very different from two dispersal patterns added together. The real crux of this experiment is that when you get two slits and ONE particle traversing the equipment, you get an interference pattern building up one particle at a time - not two dispersal patterns. That is the big “WHAT”? moment in this experiment. RM needs to give a reason for that, even at this shallow level of analysis. Without it, I think RM will be dismissed immediately on publication.
Question 29: the Michelson-Morley experiment
You mentioned that this experiment was flawed, because it is existence itself from which all physical entities are formed. I think you are saying that the aether and the photons are made of the same stuff, and so there will never be a detectable “aether wind” because it’s just noise of the same stuff and hence no net movement in any direction. Am I on the right track?
Question 30: Reflection
You have mentioned before how affectance can reach a maximum value of some attribute and then reflect. In what sense is there reflection? Does it mean that the attribute falls instead of rises? Does it mean the direction of the wave of affectance flips to the opposite direction?
Thanks for reminding me to take care of my wife. She is being very practical and doing other things while I am on the internet.
Picture a cross section of a cloud rolling through the sky. Within that cloud are areas of greater and lesser density of humidity. The “affectance” is analogous to the humidity of that cloud. The areas of density have magnitude, direction of propagation, size, and rates of change as its attributes. That is about it.
In the case of affectance, unlike the humidity, higher density causes an increase in density and thus eventually forms a maximum density in some location. That spot of maximum density happens to quantize into a particle and thus becomes very stable, again unlike merely a spot of higher humidity. We call it a “particle” merely due to our interest in it, but it is still merely a spot of high (or possibly low) density affectance.
As far as different types of affectance, that is an issue of the topic of analysis. In psychology, “affectance” refers to fundamental information and incentive issues, “affecters”. In economics, it would refer to trade or market fluctuations. In any one field of study, there is only one field of affectance that includes all possible affecters. How those are to be labeled is an issue of epistemology and convenience.
I’m still not certain that is answering your question. If not, try again.
Well let me explain again. You are talking about a magic show that you have heard about. And you are now saying that “if Science can’t explain that disappearing rabbit, then Science isn’t going to be accepted.”
The issue of acceptance is far beyond the issue of merely explaining a disappearing rabbit. But in order to explain the rabbit trick, the scientist needs to know more detail concerning the show. But it being a show for fascination of the public, such information isn’t going to come easily. There have been very many tricks that Science can’t explain merely because they are intentional tricks. That didn’t stop Science from being accepted.
I don’t mind explaining the trick once given enough information, but I don’t think that such is the crux of acceptability.
And remember, even in TEW, it is a dispersal pattern.
That’s pretty much it. It seems there were 4 distinct flaws in that experiment. The most fundamental was merely the presumption that a wind would necessarily be detectable. The issue of relativity was another one. And one of the worst was the conclusion that because the experiment did not prove aether, then it necessarily disproved aether - logical fallacy and arrogant presumption.
The notion of aether ended up being that of a medium in which other things traveled. Because of that definition, I can’t merely call affectance by the label, “aether”. Affectance is far more inclusive and totally defined and proven in every detail. Affectance has no choice but to exist. No experiment was necessary to prove it other than the program to display the necessary result of the particles forming that behaved exactly as contemporary physics has noted.
Reflection of affectance is a bit like water waves in the ocean. They travel in a direction until they run across something that prevents them from continuing as they were. But the buildup of water doesn’t merely stop where it was, it reflects back or toward whatever direction is still free to travel.
In the case of affectance, what it runs into is merely too great a density or too little of a density depending on whether it was a positive wave or negative wave. A negative wave cannot remove more affectance than exists. The value of the potential can never be less than none, zero. Thus there is a condition of too much and also a condition of too little and those cause such reflections.
In the more macroscopic world, the reason radio waves reflect is exactly and only due to that affectance effect. Additionally, the only reason hard things bounce off of hard things is exactly that same reason. A baseball bouncing off of a bat, is merely the affectance density at the points of their collision reaching an inherent maximum. Nothing has ever happened, or can happen, that isn’t merely an issue of the affectance density vectors (including that double-slit experiment). The directions of reflections are merely an issue of what directions are available, free of being blocked and how much they are blocked (which gets into some interesting math).
The fundamental concepts are not really all that complicated. The complexity comes in with the combinations and arrangements of varying field densities required to explain things that are a billion times larger than the fundamental concerns. Realize merely displaying a simple molecule is a huge project. Trying to display the interactions of a baseball hitting a bat, would be unimaginable. For such displays, simplifications must be used such as pseudo-particles that stand in as a simplified model of a far more complex real particle. This has to be done merely so that the 40 billion particles can be represented such as to display a couple of complex molecules that might be coming together.
Haha…
JSSRM just came up with a theory concerning the double-slit experiment. I will need to put this in pictorial form, but in the mean time…
As a single particle travels, it is sending out a constant wave of increased affectance density that travels faster than the particle. Thus as the particle travels, there is what you could think of as a gravity wave extending out much like what you see in super-sonic jet pictorials except that the affectance density wave is moving considerably faster than the particle (unlike the super-sonic pictorial).
As a particle travels toward one slit, its affectance wave is extending out to both slits and creating an interference pattern beyond the slit barrier. As the particle travels through the slit, it is affected by its own affectance wave front as well as the affectance wave front stemming from the other slit. The combination of both wave fronts actually causes the particle to migrate toward the greater affectance field point - the phase peak.
Thus the particle ends up following an interference trajectory that it produced all by itself. In effect, the particle is pulled off course by its own extended gravity wave. The end result would be that the particles would be distributed, after the slits, such as to follow a path that led them to the same interference type of pattern at the screen that is seen by photon interference.
I need to study the whole thought a little more, but I’m pretty sure that would explain the entire double-slit experiment without violating any RM principles (nor having to add to them). And I might even be able to create such a scenario in metaspace so as to prove it. I need to talk to Jack.
). 
