Universe and Time

Yes; “cluster”, “clump”, “traffic jam”, “crowd in a field”, and “particle” are all words that I use to refer to the same basic concept.

The noise (the inequality of the density of the noise) causes the particle motion. But why is it noise? It must be something electromagnetic, of course, but why noise?

“Noise” merely means that it is lacking pattern, randomized on an infinitesimal level. Since there is nothing to dictate a particular pattern for affectance, it travels freely enough to never form a pattern except by aberrant coincidence. The densities in different regions sway up and down like the waves in an ocean. And just like those waves, what they are calling CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) is merely the natural resonance of affectance out in space, “naturally occurring waves” that are detectable. A degree of harmonic resonance cannot be avoid. With a great deal of trouble, it can be minimized and thus reduce the double-slit experiment pattern, but it can never be reduced to zero (and has nothing at all to do with the Bogus Band Theory).

Do you accept the dualism of light (which means that light is both a wave and a particle) ?

Light is not a particle except in the sense that because all of the affectance within a photon is going in the same direction, the affectance stays together. But a photon cannot replenish itself so as to remain a stable size and shape as particles do.

A photon is merely a small amount of EMR that is typically found in specific sizes due to how a photon gets generated and detected, the changing of an electron orbit. Given a horrendous amount of distance, the photon would very gradually spread and become undetectable. Photons can combine their affect and thus can give the impression of being a particle at a specific point when in fact there was merely a higher affectance at that point as multiple remnants of prior photons overlap. That is what causes the famous “Double-Slit Interference pattern”.

In that experiment, particles can be used in place of light and achieve similar results. Because the results are similar, people can be convinced that there is little difference between a particle and a photon. But in reality, the particles display a similar interference pattern for an entirely different reason.

So, no. The “wave-particle dualism” is merely more superstitious disguise of ignorance and misdirection.

Why do the affects that were headed in the direction of motion remain within the particle of noise longer than others when the center of the noise shifts?

Because the center of the particle is moving in the same direction as the affects that were headed in that direction.

If an affect, A, is traveling from left to the right through points
x1y2, x2y2, x3y2, x4y2,…
And the particle, P, is moving through points
x1y2, x2y2, x3y2, x4y2,…
While during same time, another affect, B, is traveling through points
x2y1, x2y2, x2y3, x2y4,…
Although the affect A is moving faster than the particle P, they occupy more of the same locations during the same times. Whereas point x2y2 is the only point shared between affect B and particle P.

Or you could think of it as two planes passing through a moving cloud. One plane, A, is flying in the same direction as the cloud while the other, B, is flying transverse to the cloud’s direction. Plane A passing through the cloud and headed in the same direction as the cloud spends more time in the cloud than plane B passing through the cloud transverse to the motion of the cloud. If the cloud was slowing the planes, the plane headed in the same direction as the cloud would take longer to get to its destination.

And light passing through a glass ball will be delayed longer if the light is traveling in the same direction as the ball.

Affects are merely waves of electromagnetic radiation?

Well, it is more like an EMR wave is made of affectance waves. There is a huge difference in scale between basic RM:AO and common physics. RM:AO deals with waves that range from (but not including) absolute zero up to perhaps 1000 times smaller than an electron. Whereas the smallest physics gamma wave is much larger than an electron.

In RM:AO there is no such thing as an affectance wave that isn’t made of smaller affectance waves. And a typical EMR wave is a huge collection of affectance waves that just happens to have similar direction and polarity because of how such waves are produced. It is similar to comparing the sizes of an ocean wave (representing a gamma physics wave) to a single water molecule in RM:AO (representing an affectance “pulse” or wavelet).

To physics, an electron is so small as to be merely a tiny spec with almost no mass or size. But in RM:AO, that same electron is filled with millions of affectance wavelets or pulses with very notable mass and size. And an EMR gamma wave is much larger than that electron and filled with billions more affectance waves. An EMR wave is a huge wave of infinitesimal affectance waves.

According to RM:AO existence is that which has affect. But what is an „affect“ according to RM:AO? And what is an „affectance“ according to RM:AO?

Thus the nominative “affect” refers to the changing itself or the influencing itself (note: “Effect” refers to the end result of an Affect).

Affectance ≡ an amount of subtle affects upon affects or influences upon influences.

You’ve just given me a very general and thus a well known definition, but I wanted a physical definition, James.

So I guess there is no physical definition for “affect” and “affectance” according to RM:AO.

Well, I thought that was a physical explanation.
Did you what me to write it on a cannon ball or in a physics book?
How do you propose that I make it more physical?

You meant “want”, right?

Right. I don’t understand what you are asking for.

For example:

“EMR” as such can be explained physically, has a “physical” definition, although we know, that all definitions are lingustical / logical. Both “affect” and “affectance” as such can’t be explained physically, haven’t “physical” definitions, although we know, that all definitions are lingustical / logical. Both “affect” and “affectance” as such have “meatphysical” definitions, and we know, that all definitions are lingustical / logical.

I’m guessing that by “general”, “metaphysical”, and “logical”, you mean “abstract”. All changing is physical. The physical universe is nothing but the changing. And nothing changes unless it is physical.

The most fundamental changing (thus affecting and being affected) is that of the electric potential. As the electric potential changes, electromagnetic waves are formed. As those EMR waves travel about, they form the entire rest of the physical universe.

So a specific example of a physical “affect” is an EMR propagating wave. Physical “affectance” is the ocean of such subtle propagating EMR waves that forms the entire universe (or any portion within).

And another more common word for “affect” or “affectance”, although sometimes abused, is “energy”.

RM: AO is a daring metaphysics, because the modern physicist might feel threatened.

“Might”???
“Scared shitless” is more like it. Quantum physics and Relativity are cults, religious pseudo-science. And me being on one of their forums is like Jesus preaching in the Jewish temple.

QP and Relativity are merely convenient engineering tools used for predicting things with which they have had experience. They do not describe reality, but rather merely say, “it is as if reality is quantized and relative so we can [sometimes] presume reality to be quantized and relative and predict what will happen with QM and Relativity equations.” It is common practice in engineering to use approximate and simplified models in order to get the job done, even though the engineer knows that the model is limited and only accurate within certain specific environments.

But as a cult, they lustfully try to convince the world that they are “the voice of God” and the only truth (saying “mathematics is the language of God”). They conflate their model with reality and proclaim that reality IS the model. And when the model doesn’t work, they proclaim that Reality doesn’t work. They have boldly announced that “reality isn’t logical” - a very anti-science, cultist stance.

And even though they are the ones being cultish, they will very quickly proclaim that I am “merely a religious crackpot”. The fact that they can find no error in my reasoning merely scares them more. They will not debate me, or at least not in public. They have a very serious ego/pride problem.

And even though it is illegal to preach religion in public schools in the USA, quantum physics and relativity are the new USA’s national religion (and the new secular world religion) taught in all schools and universities as “the only truth”. And it is indoctrinated with the same harsh threats as any religion has ever practiced, “believe what we say or else!!” (the exact opposite of Science).

Quantum Physics is a mathematical fairy tale, complete with fairies, ghosts, and goblins, highly dependent upon magic. Relativity is a limited engineering convenience. Both have been made into the cultic secular religion, more pretentious, superficial, and superstitious than the other religions ever were. And just as Constantine plowed through Europe establishing the Holy Roman Empire of Christianity by demanding belief or be burned by their wizardry, the Secularists rampage the world demanding belief or be blown up by their technology.

“Feel threatened” is a serious understatement. They could no more accept me than the pharisees could accept Jesus.

This could be my signatue, … if I had one. :slight_smile:

One can learn (whatever) from your RM:AO, and that (and not “off topic” [for example: “post a picture of yourself”]) is crucial. Strange that so few members of this forum are interested in RM:AO. And the reason for this is not that they would have understood anything of it. That’s funny, isn’t it?