Before The Annihilation

The most powerful force or barrier in the entire universe is the only thing that prevents total annihilation of all forms and structures. Engineers and physicists call it “Impedance Mismatch”. Psychologists call it “Emotional Dissonance”. And sociologists call it “Ideological Differences”.

Without particlization, there could be no form or structure to the physical, the mental, or the social.

A positive particle (whether physical, psychological, or social) is kept positive by being constantly fed tiny portions of positive affectance as it also loses some through time. The negative portions floating in the ambient surroundings, pass through very quickly whereas the positive portions linger for much longer times. And a negative particle does the reverse with equal zeal. That is what keeps charged particles stable and the universe of forms, structures, and life intact.

What prevents a positive and negative particles (physical, psychological, or social) from annihilating?

If both particles are the same size, they can easily annihilate each other as the affect of each is exactly met with the affect of its opposite. They migrate toward each other, each having what the other is lacking, and then proceed to counter the affect of the other with equal affect of their own. The thief steal as much money as the bank bring in, destroying the ability to continue for both of them.

One particle must be more massive, inertial, or stable than the other in order to prevent such annihilation. The bank must have more money than the thief can steal, else it goes out of business and the thief starves for lack of resource. The wife with the exact same amount of power and inertia as the husband is soon a divorcee. To remain married, they must have a difference in strength (concerning the variety of things that keep them alive) or be very isolated from any disturbance with no other option.

It is not sufficient for a man and women to be merely different and complimentary. They must also be of unequal affect or strength. Either must be stronger (having more mass/inertia/stability/affect) than the other.

When this is the case, the two will cling to each other in symbiotic appeal but never be cancelled or annihilated by the other. They need each other’s difference and do not wish either to become like the other and no matter how much they interfere with each other’s intent or efforts (“charge”), the smaller can never cancel out all of the larger’s affect and the larger, as long as it has the upper hand, will insist that the smaller remain a complimentary particle, not merely more of the same. The businessman requires and insists upon there being a consumer of his product or service, else both perish.

This constitutes “impedance mismatching” and is literally the strongest barrier/“force” in the universe. It keeps the positive, positive and the negative, negative. They remain a stable couple, a “family” or “atom of society”.

What makes the smaller one what it is, its soul or essence, is what the larger one needs and desires to have around and vsvrsa. Both have interfering affect upon the other; “positive to negative”, “masculine to feminine”, “conservative to liberal”. But neither wants to entirely change the other into another of itself, and more importantly, they cannot lose their essence because of both physical construct as well as social/ambient conditioning and urging - the portions of charged affectance coming and going. As long as the liberal is fed liberal inspirations, the conservative is fed conservative inspirations, and one is larger than the other, the system of both together can continue. If they ever become equal in their affect upon society, they both annihilate.

Each is fed small portions its “charge” such as to remain as it was born. The male is fed with masculine affectance (urgings to be masculine). And the female is fed with feminine affectance (the urging to remain feminine). One is supplied with masculine resources while the other is supplied with feminine resources. Thus both are vested in what they are. Neither loses its essence and cannot convert to the other nor cancel the other … as long as one is larger, more stable with greater affect, than the other.

Similarly two opposing ideologies or religions have the same situation. As long as one is larger than the other in its affect, they will circle each other, each needing or wanting for what the other has, and neither capable of completely annihilating the affects of the other … as long as one has greater affect than the other.

This universal dynamic constitutes an impregnable barrier, an impedance mismatch, allowing the universe to contain forms, structure, and life. As long as particles cannot fall into each other in annihilation, space can fill with larger and larger structures. By creating devices to eliminate this dynamic, all structure annihilates.

Within each person, the same dynamic is involved. There are urges to do constructive things and destructive things. As long as one is capable of greater affect than the other, the person’s emotional stability can remain intact. They can have a stable conserving attitude or a stable destroying attitude. They can be more stable in society or be immutably sociopathic. They remain emotional consistent and stable … as long as the affect of one direction of urging is greater than its opposite.

Having no difference means having no PHT (Perception of Hope and/or Threat); no interest, incentive, or motivation. Having no motivation means having no life.

And equal yet opposite means annihilation.

A star dies after it can no longer convert hydrogen into helium. During this time which may be millions of years the
electrons become so compact that they are all that is stopping the star from collapsing under the sheer force of its
own gravity. It shrinks to the smallest possible size as a neutron star or becomes a black hole depending upon mass
For the death of a star is the most powerful example of the natural destruction of a single organism in the universe

It’s not destroyed but the mass is turned into gravitational energy. Opposites are quantified in a relational binary mode. Two equally strong forces are put into stasis by a neutral force, the neutron stabilizes appearently unequal forces, the force of an electron stabilized by centrifugal and centripetal motion. The cumulative force of the nucleus and the electron results in a stasis. Even in the case of the black hole, the Schwartchild horizon prevents the total infusion of matter at the horizon.

In philosophy, the neutral stance between the integration and the de- integration~differentiation is the categorical transformation of truth probability and necessity. The synthesis is such a categorical necessity, a-priori.

James that made me think of an android game called osmosis hd. Not a bad game.

The analogy is off to me when you move to, for example, humans. A male and a female are complicated in ways opposite particals are not. And they are not pure opposites in the ways (only some) particles are with each other. They have overlapping qualities, they are dynamic systems. Each can and does interact with only portions of the other at any given moment: the emotions, now, more verbal mental portions, then, this subpersonality now, that one then, and so on. This dynamic is dancelike and in my experience requires a gross equality in strength, with obvious differences on all the various categories of strength. James and I cannot resolve this. He will say that in relationships I have had that did not work, the inequalities were too great or there was some other reason they failed. Whereas I will say that in some cases it was in fact that there was a general inequality that was the imbalance and meant it could not work. We will be dealing with qualities and quantities that are hard to measure and will, I am quite sure, both remain quite certain the other is incorrect - on this part of his thesis above. I do not think the particle analogy - I am calling it an analogy, I would guess he would not see it as an analogy, but simply another category where the same principle applies - is a good one for male/female relations. In my experience the people who have this hypothesis need more control and are out of balance themselves. AFter all this history we need this period of time to go through the not being able to nail everything down exploration that having potential equality in romantic/sexual relations between men and women entails. To get through this we need all our skills and emotional strength, and the rush to have one side dominant is, at root, a fear-based (generally a denied fear) escape from finding something new. We’ve done the male is overall superior. We have seen what having the female as superior does - though much less, but still enough to see the imbalance it is. We need - though not everyone needs to have this - and I need the equal other - not just in romance/sex/parenting, but certainly there also. If we do not want to continue the destructive spiral we are on, this must be gone through and mastered. Not to be good men (or women). Not out of guilt or some ridiculous idea that everyone is equal, but in fact that there is a counterpart out there who can actually meet you fully. If some do not want this, fine, they will also find counterparts, but they are more peripheral. Younger souls, smaller pieces, reflecting judgments made by others and living them out, but these people should not be held up as the model. There is an anxiety, often rushed past, where one cannot immediately shunt the decision to one person. Whew, settled. We need to deal with anxiety - and the hatred it is connected to - and it has never been fully death with, anywhere.


A mapping of all objects in the universe into a single schemata is impossible, firstly at base we don’t we don’t have the required degree of structure ~ distinction. We also are not objects but compositions in a state of flux which is literally rounded up into one. That’s what the brain does, it manifests a viewer of information – the perception, and by doing that forms singular perspective based entity. This is not the same as an object of self as if we are a large scale homunculus! Your vision of physical objects is equally flawed and attempts to do the same thing in terms of particles-as-objects. and here’s why…

An ‘affecting’ particle must be changing or making effect upon another particle, which is synonymous with ‘observing’ particles in relativity. Each and every particle is in a relationship with every other, and there is no set of underpinning particles affecting. Why? Consider the maths of sphere’s bouncing off each other, its the most differentiating of tangents projections of all shapes.

When one particle observes/affects/effects another there is either a value of repulsion or attraction +/- perpendicular to the trajectory of that particle. Now add many particles and many trajectories and polarities! Now you have observing particles bouncing off each other or grouping together in the most mathematically varied manner possible. There is and cannot be an underpinning single layer of bullet-like particles >instructing< the universe and us! Ergo there cannot also be a single schemata which mathematically maps the whole universe.


My reference to male and female, or man and woman was merely about the dichotomy of masculine vs feminine, opposing characteristics and affects upon the world. Feminine affects tend to cancel masculine affects and vsvrsa. Even subatomic particles have things in common such as their mass and/or size. People can be complex for sure. They have many kinds of opposing characteristics. I was using the masculine and feminine as merely one example.

If you want perfect stability, one must keep ALL distinct characteristics opposite with one side being significantly larger than the other in affectance. The same person need not have a greater amount of every characteristic, but must sum to have the greater total affect. In essence, there must be a leader. Even science has proven that in society (70% of businesses with equal partnerships in all respects fail … so they don’t do that anymore).

Well that certainly isn’t true.

Who doesn’t?? Where did you get that notion? Would that be in Psalms? Maybe Revelations?

What makes up a “composition” in this theory of yours?

But what formed the brain before it did that?

Absolutely not the same at all.

Affectance Ontology is about the objective. You are caught in the confusion of subjectivity.

Now you are talking Relativity Theory, a nice useful mental tool, but is not a valid ontology - just try to use it considering a spinning disk. Round things, especially turning, prove Relativity to be an invalid ontology despite being quite useful for specific situations. It is just a limited mental tool. Even Lawrence Krauss will tell you that.

But yes, they are all in relation with each other … so what? Why is that an issue?

You have that seriously confused.
Particles that “observe” each other??? Affect each other, yes. And the affect is not “perpendicular”, it is aligned with, toward or away from.

But yes, you can, and do, have clumps of particles (and far more than that) affecting each other in an extremely complex combined manner (infinitely complex). What that has to do with the impossibility of an “underpinning single layer” of anything escapes me. And I haven’t been speaking of “bullet-like” particles, but merely particles.

As far as receiving instructions, every particle in the universe is “receiving its instruction”, as you put it, only from that which is immediately touching it. There is no “spooky action at a distance”, as Einstein iterated.

That’s the book your theory is reading from not mine. …and is quite inadequate as a basis for science.

It varies [and is not my theory] e.g. when in deep sleep or fully awake, dreaming or viewing the world. The instruments remain the same however their utility [+/- on/off] varies greatly.

Name the said one thing that exists ~ your singular and whole entity of personhood?

Genes growing, the subconscious. Where there is equally no ‘you’ or object of you-ness. Are you suggesting that the brain is being programmed by a meta-personhood of you, which goes on to denote that singularity of you-ness in a complete whole? Or otherwise that there is an abstract object of you-ness making effect?

there is both objectivity and subjectivity in any relationship. Your schemata goes thus; God>affecting particle field>actual physical existence, no?

You are suggesting that there is a layer of objects making an objective ‘affect’ ~ an instruction. Where instead of that, particles affect/effect one another relative to their values and in a 3 dimensional space, with denumerable 3D tangents and competing forces [each force manifests an opposing force anyway]. Particles subjective?

its two-way. There is a >relation< = mutual effect and not one party only affecting another!!!. then this between spatial and virtual locations in a soup of particles coming in and out of existence, where the energy values, trajectories and effect/reactions are impossible to denote. Even if you could mathematically form a matrix of all the numbers involved in a given current set of objects [manifold denumerable amounts], that matrix cannot also form with the particles waiting to come into and out of existence.

Relativistic observation is a description of the effect particles have even when merely making a measurement, as you know. Particles are forms of energy with values which have effects upon other particles it comes into contact with. They are not pushing something out as an instruction because there is indeed always a ‘relationship’ between the relative values. This is a two [or more] way system, and not a one to one affecting system. You are suggesting that all particles are pushing and not receiving, that they each denote or ‘affect’ which objectively denotes particularly and specifically the values of the next particle. That way you can get instruction all the way from God and on down to the earth eh! Just a tad linear.

The variety is what denotes a non singular layer [see above]. there are no ‘layers’.

Here you are imagining local effects on a one to one basis throughout the universe, and not that there is entanglement between all particles [at least potentially].


Absolutely not … “NO!”

I took the chance that you and I might be able to communicate a little more than I should have. It is very obvious to me that you are completely off track with what I have been trying to say and I can only guess that I probably have no idea what you are intending by what you say. So I think this exchange is just going to have to terminate unsatisfied.

Affectance is all about mutual affect, “affect upon affect”.

You missed the boat. I HAVE.

There is definitely no such thing as “particles waiting to come into existence”.

What I know is that measuring has zero affect upon physical reality as long as you keep your tools out of the picture. Again, you seem to have gotten swept up in the Quantum Magi’s mental spell.

Well, at least you have that part right.

Absolutely not. Again, You are WAY off track with everything I have been saying. It might be possible that we actually entirely agree, but certainly not without communicating better than this.

You are arguing my position exactly backwards.

There is no “spooky action at a distance”. That is one thing that Einstein certainty had right.

And what is after the annihilation?

You are pretty much watching it.

That seems like a fallacy, because you are trying to say particles arent real, when atoms are real particles and do exist.

the universe is a giant fluid system, not newtonian rigid body. all rigid bodys are fluids, but dense and congested fluids.

Our selves are real, and there is no such thing as causality.

Our body follows us along, it is made up of shapes, therefore it exists. It follows itself around all the time so it might as well give itself a name.

Causality is fake. There are only linked effect chains, no causes. for example, a marble rolling down the hill is linked to the effect chain of a hand pushing it. but the marble pushes the hand too. Our brains cause time to flow but time causes our brains to flow. Our consciousness is local to our brains space, but our brain is local to our consciousness space. neither causes the other, although they are linked associates, linked effect chains, but the chain has no order of causality.

FYI, the black hole theory is about to go down
American astronomers claim that black holes may not exist … ion.uknews … ack-holes/

from article one…

‘If the finding is verified - an event some scientists do not see on the horizon’ - meaning the finding that might indicate ideas about black holes need revision - note that, revision - or may have fundamental problems. So at least according to the first article the theory is not about to go down.
The second article seems to be running on the speculative side about this also.

Latest news: astronomers have verified Einstein’s claim for the collision of black holes.