Universe and Time

Why would it “have been better off never learning” the Quantum Physics?

It is misleading and erroneous, just as is Relativity, although Relativity has limited usefulness.

About the only thing good coming from QP is that it inspires education in mathematics and provides distractive and entertaining sci-fi stories (if that can be called “good”).

The question is whether Man should face the fact that the better life is NOT filled with extreme passions of love and hate, hope and fear, ideals and vulgarities, but rather “relatively” mundane ups and downs (somewhat Buddhistic).

As JSS said before: “Absolute zero is merely one divided by absolute infinity and thus cannot exist either.”

Wha is the amount of “that limited rate of adding affects”?

Noise is not possible without the electromagnetic force. But why is that clump of affectance noise and not a different “effect” of EMR? And is a particle merely a “»standing wave« of noise” and nothing else?

In what units?
In common physics, it would be measured as dV/dt, a change in volts per a change in time (seconds) or in voltage per frequency, volts/hertz. But how much is a volt? How much is a second?

Logically (or mathematically) the limit is the first order of infinity. But I can’t say that volts and seconds are on the same order of infinity. Although I can say that the change in PtA per tic, dP/dt, can never exceed infinity. Thus;

That picture shows two commonly occurring cases wherein there are an infinite number of affectance waves converging. If the average PtA level of all of them is less than 1, when they sum, the value will be;
PtA sum [size=150]<[/size] infinity * 1 = infinity.

If they converge within the same tic of time, the PtA level would be less than infinity, which can be accomplished. But if the average of all of them is greater than 1, the sun is;
PtA sum [size=150]>[/size] infinity *1 = infinity. And that cannot logically/mathematically occur.

Since the “Maximum Rate of Change”, MCR, was challenged by their summing, they must delay long enough to allow the rate of change to be less than infinite. That delay is what begins inertia and perhaps a particle.

If that MCR is challenged too often within the same close region, a particle forms;

I’m not sure what your first question is, but a particle is “nothing but noise” because there is nothing but the delaying of noise to cause a particle to form. The changing noise (“affectance” or in this case “EMR”) is all that exists.

The affects continue to attempt adding at the same location while any additional propagating affect must wait for time to pass, but why does any additional propagating affect have to wait? Is it because of the limited rate of adding affects, and if so, why is there a limited rate of adding affects, and why can’t the waiting affects not also attempt adding?

What does „Da“ in „Da-Affectance Density“ mean?

It is the “traffic jam” effect. As one gets delayed, those coming up behind it can get closer, but they end up having to wait also, just a little less. No affect can “crawl over” another or pass it. But as that is happening in the entire region around the center, more and more delaying happens, thus producing an entire field of delaying that gradually gets milder further from that center.

And all of that delaying is the make of what we call the “gravity field” or “mass field” or what RM:AO refers to as simply the “Affectance field around a concentration” (Einstein’s “rubber sheet”). The gravity field is actually made up of the electromagnetic field pulses randomly distributed and extremely small. In a sense, there is no “gravity field” that is any different than merely a chaotic and neutral electric field. Extremely fine EMR is what makes gravity and mass. What they call “mass” is merely far more concentrated random EMR pulses than its surrounding gravity field.

“Da” = “Density (of affectance)”, “D” for Density, sub-“a” for affectance (as opposed to Density of Water or Air).

Oh… and now I see what they are calling the “weak force” (what they used to call the “strong force”). Today the “strong force” is what holds quarks together and the “weak force” is what holds protons together. Those two “forces” are actually identical. And a quark isn’t actually a whole particle. :icon-rolleyes:

So you are saying that, actually, there is no gravity. Right?

They say that the strong nuclear interaction (force) holds the whole nucleus of the atom together, not merely the quarks, but also the hadrons (baryons and mesons) which are composed of quarks. And they say that the weak nuclear interaction (force) underlies some forms of radioactivity, governs the decay of unstable subatomic particles such as mesons, and initiates the nuclear fusion reaction that fuels the Sun. The weak force acts upon all known fermions—i.e., elementary particles with half-integer values of intrinsic angular momentum, or spin. Particles interact through the weak force by exchanging force-carrier particles known as the W and Z particles. These particles are heavy, with masses about 100 times the mass of a proton.

He might not be, but I am. A centripetal force meeting a centrifugal force coupled with magnetics that bring minerals together into a suitable atmosphere that is both caused by and contains the two meeting forces. Gravity is an illusion just as much as our notions of ‘up’ and ‘down’

An illusion or not an illusion: it has a cause! Either this cause is the gravity itself, or it is something else which is the cause of the gravity. Perhaps the cause of gravity is an electromagnetic one.

So: (1) electrostatic => electromagnetic, (2) electromagnetic => gravity, (3a) electromagnetic => weak force, (3b) gravity => strong force.

Or: (1) electric potential, (2) electric propagation, (3) magnetic electric concentration« (together as electromagnetic radiation), (4) gravity (or mass), (5) strong force, (6) weak force.

Too simple for my tastes. What if it were both a cause and effect? What if something caused the effect which caused the effect which caused the effect to repeat and become what it is? I would assume that our gravity and atmosphere developed slowly over a long period of time as the cause and effect first gained momentum and then finally opened up to be as complete as it should.

You mean an eternal “ping-pong-match” of cause and effect? And what do you mean with “it”? The gravity? Or just any interaction (force) ?

well, the ‘it’ would be more than just the gravity, it would have to be what caused it and what was affected by it as well as what the gravity causes and what it affects. ‘It’ would be the process.

edit: hrm… I was struggling with the words effect and affect on this one. Both seem like they would fit.

What would it exactly be?

Really? Fucking really? wtf.

Idioticidioms,

First realize that Arminius is German and doesn’t always understand the precise meaning of your English words. He was asking for clarification.

Obviously you have your own theory concerning gravity. But we are discussing RM:AO’s theory concerning the one fundamental principle that is causing all of existence to be what it is and how that one principle (in the form of an “Affectance filed” relates to the more commonly know physics elements of electric potential, light/EMR, mass, gravity, strong and weak forces and their interactions and how one can come to Know it (not guess about it).

Concurrent Physics: “There are four fundamental forces that cause the universe to be what it is”.
RM: Affectance Ontology: “There is one fundamental “force” that causes the universe to be what it is.”

Although I don’t call it a “force”, but rather a particular impossibility, a situation, a “principle”, and in effect, an “immutable force” that is eternal, never affected, and never changes. That one principle is what creates all of their principles and forces, and everything else they see.

Physicists have been admitting that there are two physical “worlds” for them: (1) the “world of classical physics” and (2) the “world of quantum physics”.

I’m afraid we will have to continue to live with these two “worlds”. This “worlds” are similar to e.g. the subject/object-dualism and the existence/nothingness-dualism, which we have already discussed several times.

Yes, but RM (RM specifically, not “RM:AO”) handles that issue. RM is a method for creating ontologies, mental understandings (their QP world) that are totally coherent and comprehensive, unlike current QP. AO is merely the first that I created using RM, involving “affectance” as the one “field” from which all fields arise.

“Truth” is different than “Reality” because truth is about an ontology of understanding approximations of reality. The mind cannot even begin to hold all of reality within itself. But the mind can categorize and thus simplify reality based on relevant need, thereby capable of slowly managing to handle reality sufficiently, even though never aware of the totality of it at any one moment. So the mental map is all that is required, but it has to be a coherent and comprehensive map if it is ever going to solve all of the problems of dealing with Reality. RM is a method to allow that to be done.

The mankind should not allow the annihilation of the difference between „truth“ and „reality“. In Europe it is already practically forbidden to speak of „truth“ (you know why, James). „There is no truth at all“, it is often said as soon as one speaks of it. Ridiculous. It is so important that the difference remains.