Well, a photon isn’t an object, but rather an amount. Normal photons get produced by a specific means (electron orbital decay) that always yields specific amounts. But in the case of extreme disintegration, you could not expect all photons to be of such quantum amounts.
And what that theory seems to be missing is the concept of “dark matter/energy”. High concentrations of affectance (EMR, including photons of every size) aggregate into dense clouds. If the cloud becomes dense enough, it forms a new black hole. Between all of the black holes, the affectance field keeps gravity functioning such as to draw the black holes together. As they collide, they stand a chance of reproducing our more commonly observed “universe” of stars and planets. Because the universe is actually infinite, there can never be a time when a black hole isn’t headed toward another. Once two extremely large black-holes collide, a new “local universe” is born.
So there cannot really be any time when there are no photons and even the loss of matter is only temporary.
James, you should send on or add „to you“ or „for you“, because the current „mainstream“ physicists have a different theory. According to their theory a photon is a particle, a exchange particle for the electromagnetic force. According to your theory a photon „isn’t an object, but rather an amount“.
Do you agree with someone saying that even the black holes will disappear „sometime between 10^80 and 10^130 years, with the utmost probability after 10^130 years“?
Well, it isn’t an issue of “theory” but of ontology. Some people might refer to other people as “objects” (the materialist’s perspective). Others would claim that they are not objects, but rather living beings. The language and associated concepts are the only difference.
Current religious physics requires that “particles” be involved in all exchanges of anything (monetizing or quantizing all exchanges). So no matter what is really happening, seemingly out of a fear of “infinity”, they refer to all exchanges of gravity, momentum, energy, or whatever as being “carried by particles”, as though there were discreet objects involved, which is actually silly. But that is their ontology and easy to prove it to be untrue unless you just define a “particle” as “any small amount”.
I am not afraid of infinity, so I have no problem with accepting that exchanges occur in indiscreet amounts that I refer to as “afflates” (Affectance Oblates). And with that ontology, I can explain everything they explain as well as things they cannot explain.
No.
It would be extremely, extremely, extremely difficult to cause a black hole to dissipate into space before anything else re-fed it or it ran into another black hole. And even if a black hole actually did manage to totally disintegrate down to a single particle, nearly impossible to get rid of, at that same moment, other black holes would be forming.
But for a black hole to actually dissipate would require an unimaginable amount of space void of anything else whatsoever (including any gravity not of its own). Each galaxy has its own black hole (so they say). There is a HUGE amount of space between those galaxies, yet the stars and planets are all falling INTO the black holes, not radiating out into the extreme open space. If you were to disintegrate ALL of the stars and planets in a galaxy, an extreme “dark matter” cloud would be the result. And as they already have decided, such “dark energy/matter” acts as gravity, thus drawing and holding energy in, resisting the open expanse.
If the open expanse around a black hole was extreme enough that the black hole began dissipating (probably requiring the entirety of the known universe for each black hole), as it lost mass, it would accelerate even faster toward another black hole far away. And the closer it got to another black hole, the slower it could dissipate.
It is true that the modern, especially the current physicists are religious or ideological, that they are “crazy” about particles, especially exchange particles because they are „materialists“. I would prefer if they were more “crazy” about energy ( ).
You know that I mean „dissapear for ever“, do you?
According to your theory.
„Dark energy“ doesn’t act as gravity, but as its contrary.
Then “Hell no”.
My theory is that if a single photon is given an unlimited amount of space to travel through, it will eventually spread and, in effect, dissipate into obscure affectance, undetectable. But all photons can never disappear.
Logic dictates it.
If they are calling something “dark matter/energy” and proposing that it has negative mass (thus anti-gravity), they simply have no idea what they are talking about. Why call it “dark-matter” if they really mean “anti-mass”? Someone is confused. Anti-mass is a logical impossibility (anti-matter is a different thing).
It is true that we tend to use possibility and potential almost in the same way and i do not think that even English language sees them much differently.
Having said that, i very well understand and also accept your interpretation of both terms. That is not a issue.
Aristotle also addressed the same issue and gave the same judgement.
I do not have two definitions of time either.
At metaphysical level, it is will and at physical level, firstly, it is time and then matter.
According to me, will, time and non-live mattter are the same things in different densities.
For more clarification, there is no time in the real world. Will transforms itself into physcial matter and one matter into anothe rmatter and time is merely our mental construct to guage that process or delay.
I don’t know what you mean by “the metaphysical level”. Metaphysics means “the logic or reasoning beyond the actual existence”. Metaphysics is about “why” things occur (logic and/or mathematics and concepts), not “what” is occurring (entities that physically exist).
Time is the difference in change rates. Certainly there is difference in change rates anytime there are changes.
How does will transform itself into physical substance? Why does it?
My understanding of Metaphysica is exactly the same as you put it - At the level of concept/logic and beyond being physical.
James, as i see it, there is not much difference between physics and metaphysics. Metaphysics is nothing but subtle physics.
The difference is only in quantity, not quality. It is merely our comprehending capability that distinguish the two, otherwise, they are still the same.
The same is the relation of will and matter. Will is eternal, a perpetual energy. So, after once saperated from consciusness and coming into action, it cannot be stopped ever, but can controlled and guided only.
Thus, it keeps running, manifesting more and more of itself and creating its spread. Then, after some time, as the density of will increases in this spread, it has no option but to interact itself and create more and more complex and differnt wills other than just to exist. This leads to will to change. Then this will to change becomes even more complex and the process goes on, untill this complexity becomes a density and enters in the zone, which we call physical.
As far as the consciousness is concern, in simple words, it is the beholder of the willingness. It is also eternal (no starting, no end). At one time, willingness was inherited in the consciousnes as a potential. But, from the moment of Let there be light, the potential of expressing itself (will to exist) materialized and consciousness started willing.
Till the moment, the consciousness had only will to exist, it was fine. It was the stage of almost unentropy, with a very small about of negativity, just enough to get the things going. But, fortunately or unfortunately, it could have not remain so and the negativity increased continuously, in the form of will of change, instead of stopping at will to exist only.
So, at last, being too negative to remain with the big positive particle, some portion of the consciousness broke away from the mother particle and the total willingness of that isolated consciousness spread in the ambient. The willingness saperated itself from consciousness, leaving the particles of consciousness completely pure, void of any willing. The remaining big Mother particle is the Ultimate God, as Vedanta and Sufism and other schools describe it.
My guess is that this consciousness cannot be deducted further. Though, i am not sure and it is also possible that the quality of sensing or feeling may be at its roots, in the same way the quality of doingness is behind the will.
Thus, we have the cosmos made of two different qualities, feeling and doing, acting/affecting and witnessing.
That is precisely the point where i differ from AO as it relies only on affectance, not its witness.
Now, those particles of pure consciusness tend to roam in the ocean of will, till they found some form of matter that is consciousness-ready. Then they interact with it and create life. These life forms can be formed in different will densitiy zones and that creates humans like us, Deities and other Devine entities.
Consciousness, at its purest form, does not do anything but just witness what happens around it. It can feel, which is its default nature, and due to that that nature, it always gets attracted towards the most intensified will, which any particular live-form use to have at any given moment.
Time is merely a measurement of change/delay, which we tend to conceptulize for our conveneience and has no real existence in this creation. It is the same relevence as the kilogram use to have for weight.
That won’t really cut it as a definition. It would be like defining an apple as “that which holds apple juice”, making even glass jars into apples.
What is it that distinguishes consciousness from every other kind of thing? If I see or think of something, how do I know if what I am thinking of is “consciousness” rather than something else?
My own definition is; Consciousness ≡ Remote recognition
A glass of jar may have apple juice in it but that jar does not inherit apple juice by default, but may be filled of million other things.
But, that is not in the case of consciousness and will as they are default allies. It is the question of inheritness.
A will cannot attach to anything else and so the consciousness is.
Consciousness = being witness, sensing and feeling all that what is happening around it.
The first 8 are issues of definitional logic. From those, I created a program in a small PC from which I could witness the rest of them as consequences, although the PC was too small to have flows of electrons circling such as to get a clear picture of the magnetics effects toward the end of that list.
My first display mechanism was merely the numerical readout from an Excel program showing a single plane slice through a cubic metaspace and looked something like this;
Then I cleaned it up a bit so that I could more clearly see the “clumps” that were forming and added a tracker program (the circles) to follow the formed particles;
Then cleaned it up more where I could watch interaction between particles yielding a series of frames. I only took snapshots of the following three frames out of about 35. The upper blue curve is a graph of the distance between the identical changed-particles as the one on the right was thrown toward the other (center), in a 3D space.
The motion within the metaspace was actually 3D, so all you see in those snapshots is the degree of affectance associated with the one plane cutting through the center of the space. The center particle ended up moving slightly forward and down while the upper right particle (thrown at the center particle) swerved across the top of the center particle and veered upward and back. Those shots weren’t supposed to be proof of anything in themselves. I had watched very many sequences. I wasn’t concerned at that time about public display, but rather seeing if the original logic actually lead to our known physical laws, which they did.
Later I got inspired to create a program for people to play with the whole thing and prove it all for themselves, but the display turned out to be an issue. I started to develop a program showing the affectance, not as numbers but as small colored specs, “afflates” (usually 100,000 or so “Affectance Oblates”, “afflates” for short).
I built the following program as a platform (showing over 1,000,000 “afflates”) and was thinking that I could build onto it in order to get a public tool where people could play with the variable, see the programming, and prove it all as well as many other things for themselves (rather than everyone having to take someone else’s word).
But that turned out to be just too much for a small PC unless you are a serious expert programmer with the right support files (which I didn’t have). So I tried for a while to see if there was a way to get the program to make video files where you could see the actual video motion, but without the video support files, the whole thing became just way, way to convoluted and slow to be of any realistic good.
The following are a few shots as I was playing with different video methods (displaying the cloud of affectance within the chamber);
And I made this little clip just as a morphed series of snapshots (not having the video support files necessary) showing a particle forming from a cloud by itself. It forms and stabilizing pretty quickly;
But I finally gave up on that effort simply because it was getting way to impractical to serve its purpose. And more recently finally figured out a way to make that same program better, but it is still a monumental task and I still don’t have the proper computer support. So I have just been making short animation clips for sake of explanation a few things online. They are strictly for explanation purposes. None of them show the reality of it as it could be seen.
The fundamental program isn’t that complicated. It just takes a whole lot of memory and processing time and then seriously needs a good video display mechanism so that the relevant results can be easily identified and seen without having to analyze data.
I feel like Einstein having to invent and prove the oscilloscope merely to explain his relativity theory.
???
When was what? I was attempting that project maybe 8 months ago or so. But I never got to produce the video because of insufficient tools. I found myself going through ridiculous extremes to do the simplest of tasks involved (like having to create my own video encoder).
If I had been asked for a unified field theory during the 1980’s, I would guess that it would have taken maybe 2 months to come up with the answer. But when it came to verification and demonstration, although I might have put together some software for that, I would have very probably just designed a different kind of computer processor such that the essential functions were a part of the hardware (my specialty at the time). That would have taken maybe a few weeks and produced a cube of metaspace running at least 1000 times faster. And that would allow for much greater convenience in experimenting with varied field strengths and particle behaviors. And I might have even gone the more serious route and used analog processing in critical areas, giving it probably another 1000 times faster response time (when it comes to the fundamentals involved in reality, digital is horrendously slow).
But either way, the issue would still have been one of producing visual confirmation and communication for sake of others. Producing a video of the various experiments would still have been a major issue because it isn’t an issue of making a film that portrays or simulates the events, but rather a video of an emulation taking place in real time. And a video file would have been even harder to produce back then and would have slowed the processing down tremendously (tempting me to do even that part in firmware).
Interestingly, even though everything thinks in terms of how computing has advanced so much, in many ways, it has receded. That same project would probably take me years to develop and a great deal more money. Today, I feel pretty much like I am having to figure out how to build a space shuttle out of used car parts. The tools and resources don’t match the need.
That’s the point. When you are revolutionizing a field, the old tools don’t fit the new needs. RM:AO isn’t another evolutionary step in science. It is a revolutionary restart of science. And when the theory must be proven, it often takes inventing the new tools. And that can easily take much longer and perhaps totally different talents than the theory is all about. RM:AO has very little to do with creating video encoders and advanced processors. But those things are needed as tools merely to demonstrate the much simpler theory and the greatly complex association between the theory and all of the questions that people have concerning anything new.
).
