The noise IS the “medium”, the only medium in all existence, and referred to as “Affectance”. Gravity and mass are made of it and all physical fields or “forces” are merely aberrant effects due to its relatively simple behavior. What is called “dark-matter” is simply more dense regions of affectance. Sub-atomic particles are merely extremely high concentrations of affectance noise. Photons are merely traveling bundles of it. Positive and negative charge fields are merely affectance noise that happens to be pulsing more upward than downward or visa versa. The strong and weak forces are merely predictable after affects that occur when high concentrations come close together. There is nothing throughout the entire universe that is not made of affectance merely in one of several varied arrangements. Thus “affectance noise IS the only medium”.
In more modern physics terms, affectance noise is merely extremely, ultra subtle EMR noise, electromagnetic radiation at immeasurably high random frequencies. All of space is made of it.
Except for a small difference. Aether was a medium in which other things floated about. Affectance is a medium in which merely higher concentrations of the medium float about. Those “things”, such as sub-atomic particles, are the medium as well, merely concentrated.
Affectance concentrates automatically into tiny spheres of a particular size because affects necessarily slow themselves into traffic jams of noise. But as the traffic jam gets larger, the outer perimeter gets thinner and weaker. The size is then set by the “speed of light” as tiny affects run into each other. It is much like a traffic jam on the highway in that the speed of the traffic determines the size of the congestion.
A traffic jam of affectance causes a wide spread slowing of the traffic that gets exponentially weaker at slowing traffic. A photon is like a pack of buses going through the neighborhood and it gets slowed also. And if the traffic jam, the large particle, happens to be on one side of the path of the photon, the photon slows more on that side thus bending its course. Thus light actually “falls” into or toward heavy objects. But they have to be really, really massive.
Ok, the theory of aether isn’t up to date, I know, but maybe it will be as it was until Einstein’s theory of relativity.
What do you think about the theory of strings? The theory of strings is again more like the Pythagorean theory.
Which natural force is the most basic one? By the current state of physics the gravity is the most basic force of nature, but there is much evidence that it isn’t the gravity, but the electromagnetism.
Relativity has been proven to be incorrect, but closer than Newtonian physics. “Affectance Ontology” is built entirely upon logic, assuming nothing, and explains why all things are as they are and do what they do.
I agree with Stephen Hawking that it was a silly idea.
How so?
Current physics is built upon the ontology of forces and objects. In Affectance Ontology there are no forces nor objects. Nothing is ever actually pushing or pulling on anything. What are called “particles” in physics move only due to them constantly reconstructing themselves closer to the higher affectance density of which they are made. Once in motion, they remain in motion only because they have become formed out of affectance that was propagating in that direction. When they encounter another particle, the propagating affectance transfers from one to the other.
But if I were to call something a force in AO, I would have to say that the most fundamental was current physics’ “electric potential”, which in AO is “Potential-to-Affect”, “PtA”. The PtA causes changes in nearby PtA which leads to the propagation of PtA changes, in physics known as “EMR”, electromagnetic radiation. Changing PtA is what causes “time”.
The effort to propagate PtA amongst the other changing PtA causes a compression of the PtA in physics known as “magnetic waves”. And realize that PtA is not a substance, merely a situation or arrangement. The changing or propagating PtA, “affectance”, is the actual substance of the universe of which literally all things are made.
Mass is formed as a result of too many changes in PtA converging at one point causing an immutable traffic jam. Surrounding that traffic jam is exponentially decreasing congestion of the propagating PtA, or “exponentially decreasing affectance density”. The result of that gradient field of affectance density is the effect known in physics as “gravity”. A gravitational field and mass are actually merely different concentrations of the same thing, randomly propagating EMR or “Affectance”.
So without EMR, there can be no gravity.
And realize that all of that can be step-by-step, assuming nothing whatsoever, logically proven beyond any rational question. And then beyond even such logical derivation, all current empirical physics supports the theory. Physicists merely don’t think in those terms and thus find themselves facing paradoxes.
In ancient times science and philosophy were almost identical. The theory of the strings is very much theoretic and thus more similiar to the theory (philosophy) of the Pythagorean than other theories - furthermore: the theory (philosophy) of the Pythagoreans as well as the theory of the strings refer to music (strings).
Interestingly, the strongest force in the universe is called “The Electroweak Force” or just “The Weak Force” by Science. And one of the two weakest forces in the universe is called “The Strong Force” by Science (the other being “Valance”).
Yes, but the electroweak force, which is the electromagnetic force and the weak force as unit (notice: both as unit!), are no longer a unit because the temperature in the universe is too low (the universe is too cold therefor).
So there remains the question about the one currently main force (I don’t mean the strongest force, but the main force!). There are speculations, theories, and of course philosophies about this topic. Most of them indicate that the gravity is the main force because the gravity always “wins” ( ) - this has been the hegemonic theory since Einstein*s theory of relativity -, others indicate that the main force is the electromagnetism. The latter is very interesting, I think.
I think that perhaps you are talking about “the most important” or “the most relevant” force. But the fact remains that gravity cannot exist at all without electric potential but electric potential can exist without gravity. Thus electric potential is “more fundamental”.
And that also indicates that the eletric potential respectively the electromagnetic force is currently the main force, as I said, respectively the most important or the most relevant force, as you said.
That’s probably right. At least that’s what I think.
That point isn’t the most important for the topic because it merely refers to the “history” of the universe. So we can probably neglect that point. Anyway, I triy to explain:
The current physicians assume that in the “history” of the universe at first the gravity, at second the stronge force, at third the electroweak force developed, and the weak force as well as the electromagnetism (electromagnetic force) seperated from the electroweak force. So the sequence was:
Gravity => Strong Force => Electroweak Force (=> Weak Force and => Electromagnetism) !
In the meantime the temperature of the universe sank (declined). This sinking of the temperature caused the development of those basic forces of nature.
To me “relevance” or “importance” is subjective whereas “fundamental” refers to the construct. Gravity is constructed out of electric potential, as is the weak force. The strong force is constructed out of gravity.
And don’t confuse the electromagnetic force with the “weak force”. Electromagnetic forces are what causes the attraction and repulsion of charged particles (in physics terminology). The weak force is what prevents an electron from falling into a proton despite the electromagnetic attraction involved. The weak force must counter the electromagnetic force or electric potential.
How would you describe this in such signs: => … => …?
I know, James. I don’t confuse the electromagnetic force with the weak force. But nevertheless, the weak force and the electromagnetism (electromagnetic force) seperated from the electroweak force, as I said (here), what doesn’t mean that they could or should be confused by anyone.
Perhaps I would have done better in this way:
[size=130] Gravity => Strong Force => Weak Force => Electromagnetism (the latter both were formerly Electroweak Force) ![/size]
A gravity field is merely mass spread out in a region. A mass particle is merely a very dense spec of highly concentrated gravity field. And both the gravity field and mass are made of nothing but electromagnetic radiation, EMR.
When I speak in physics terms, I have to translate from RM:AO and things get lost in the translation. In AO, there are no forces except the differential PtA. Everything else is an aberrant effect that merely appears as a force. And I think of RM:AO’s PtA as physics’ electrostatic force.
I can translate “gravity” or “mass density” as AO’s “affectance density”. But in AO, affectance can be “charged” due to a specific condition of the affectance field, yielding a positive, negative, or neutral affectance field. Thus I can speak of a “charged gravity field” which translates into physics’ “electric field” as long as it isn’t neutral.
Looking at it that way, the gravity field would seem the most fundamental. But if you look more deeply into what causes a field to be charged, you get back to the concept of PtA doing the charging. And PtA is temptingly translated as “electric potential”. But in physics, an electric potential is merely an potential average of the changing potentials over a field region. And the gravity field is made of changing PtA, thus “changing electric potentials”. And a changing electric potential is called “electromagnetic”.
This is what happens when things get named before they get understood and is much like translating the Bible into physics terminology, things get confused and lost because there are different ontological entities being referenced and they are seldom one-to-one translatable.
) - this has been the 
