Fluid newtonian particle sim with a gravity value of zero. yes i meant circling. I knew spinning was not the word i wanted but I couldnt think of the right word.
Dont know what the difference is between simulate and emulate anymore.
i suppose my question would be why does a circling electron cause a vortex of magnetism on one end, but a fountain on the other end? Why does it change based on counter clockwise vs clockwise?
I don’t use Newtonian particles for anything. Those would be a simulation, not emulation.
To simulate is to pretend motion by controlling and instructing something to behave in programmed ways proposed as similar to real objects. An android would simulate human behavior so as to appear human-like.
To emulate is to construct something such that it has the same properties as something else and thus naturally behaves the same way without being controlled into doing so. More advanced androids will no longer simulate human behavior but instead merely behave how they see fit, which might or might not be human-like.
My metaspace emulates space itself and thus “naturally” does whatever real space would do. I don’t control it into behaving as I imagine that it should, but rather I merely have the most fundamental substance behave as such a substance must and then watch what comes of it. And as it turned out, literally all physics comes of it as particles naturally form and behave exactly like real neutral and/or charged particles behave - naturally forming gravity, charge fields, repelling, attracting, and so on.
I don’t tell a meta-particle how to behave. I let it form and watch how it behaves under different situations.
These are some snaps of the original program, without a visual interface and instead showing the raw data on a 3D excel sheet for its display. These are 3 shots showing two charged (positive) particles as they approach. It isn’t easy to tell from merely these 3 shots, but the graph at top displays a measure of how close the particles came to each other as the particle on the right was created as a moving particle toward the particle on the left, originally not moving (I could cause a particle to form as moving or not).
As the particle on the right approaches the centered particle, they repel each other and head off in a 3D angle (into and out of the display plane). The numbers surrounding (and forming) the particles are the affectance field (gravity and charge fields). The higher numbers are higher density affectance. And although every point in the space has affectance of some level, the page is filtered to not show any value less than a certain amount so that the higher density, the particles, could be more clearly seen. The blue circles are a separate targeting program that tracks the highest density clusters, the particles, again merely to make them more obviously visible.
Well no. It is causing a vortex in both directions. But when too vortexes are facing each other and spinning in the same direction (either clockwise or counter-clockwise), they suck each other into each other. If they are spinning in opposing directions, one clockwise and one counter-clockwise, they naturally repel each other.
You should note that the fields themselves are not affecting each other much except at the highest density point, the particles/electrons. The spiraling compression waves cause the electrons to move closer or further away as the electrons circle. In effect, the electron is “dragging” the rest of the atom along with it as it gets deviated by the compression vortex of the other atom.
Fluid simulation please. i would like to see two mirrored vortexes repel or suck each other,
and i would like to see a circling object create two mirrored vortexes that converge on a focal point that dissipates the energy.
What is the minimum and maximum resolution of an affectance noise probable particle.
Can we liken affectance to the god particle, as it seems like it is gods flesh and with it creating form from nothing.
Affectance seems to imply determinism and no free will. But the illusion of free will is real.
Yeah well. Give me six months to rebuild and run that emulation and the incentive to bother then we’ll see. 
… Hey. It’s a hell of a lot cheaper than CERN’s particle accelerator … and at times a bit more accurate.
?? “probable particle”?
The particles are the sizes of electrons, positrons, neutrinos, neutrons, and protons. And note that protons and neutrons are about a thousand times larger than electrons. My program can’t handle anything larger than a single hydrogen atom and has to be modified just for that. To me, an electron is a pretty large entity by itself. In those last pics, that number to the left, “75,000” was the number of “afflates” (selected oblate portions of the affectance field) that the program was monitoring, as if each of them were particles and all just to form two electrons. Later I more often used 200,000 so as to get more precise resolution. The resolution can be set to be as small as you want (it is infinitely pure), but has upper limits because particles cannot form except from the chaotic noise of very many/much affectance interactions.
“God Substance” maybe. Affectance doesn’t come as particles. It comes as a fluid ocean with varying waves of compression that can peak to cause particle formation (God’s memory of the noisy collision at that point in space).
Free-will is a different kind of issue. You have free-will as long as you have the freedom to choose your path. The fact that on an ultra-minuscule scale, every single subatomic particle has a determined path independent of your thoughts and desires, is actually irrelevant.
So affectance is god of the gaps? In that it has no gaps, and infinite zoom? Can you zoom in on it infinitely getting lost in the zoom because after a certain zoom it all looks the same?
Doesnt that give atoms and form a kind of magical property, as they have form, and change based on zoom (as opposed to identical appearance once you get within a certain range.)
Or, if you continue zooming, will you run into an inverse universe where form appears again at 10e-10000000000000 scale?
My feet are starting to hurt so I will exit this discussion for the time being. Find a friend to do the fluid sim, and use proper newtonian mechanics, not aether mechanics (i know you said this wasnt aether because objects dont float on it, but then you said that objects do float on it so it sort of is aether, even though objects eat the aether and are powered by the aether. But arent we powered by fruit and eat the fruit, yet still classified as not fruit? so affectance might as well be aether.)
We will leave the free will discussion for when I think of a good comeback.
That is true. Once you get smaller than an electron, the distinction in affectance density becomes formless. The spherical shape of a monoparticle is the smallest stable form in the universe. And it is that way due to a very exact and unchangeable reason.
Nope. It is 100% impossible for anything smaller than an electron/positron/neutrino to form a stable shape. The unalterable speed of light is the “magic” that dictates what size is minimum. I explained why it must travel at that particular speed on a different thread.
Also I forgot to ask, why do you say the CERN particle experiments are innaccurate?
Also, if the affectance field is composed of waves, waves have form, therefore they are not infinitesmal, and zooming in on it would be discernible?
I said that RM:AO developed metaspace is MORE accurate. They have to do too much speculation concerning what they are seeing when they collide particles. In RM:AO Metaspace, particles don’t even have to be collided in order to see what is going on. They can be stopped, examined, shifted, restarted, collided, or whatever you want.
I don’t know what the layperson thinks of when I say “wave”, but it is apparently not “wave”. A wave is not necessarily (and never in physical reality) a perfect math function. And it can’t really be called a “shape” either. There is a region where, temporarily, the density has increased. And that region might be propagating. But it doesn’t maintain any particular shape. A particle is only a particle because it maintains itself regardless of great interference. Waves and pulses don’t do that except for rare cases. And those cases are very much larger than monoparticles.
When I say wave, I say a sine wave flux. Why do photons exhibit a sine wave flux? What is the difference between photons and sound waves, and why are they both sine wave ish.
They don’t. Physicists merely describe them that way. As soon as a photon reflects off of anything, it is certainly not in the shape of a sine wave.
Mathematically, it has bee proven that any shape can be defined by an infinite series of sine waves. For that reason, a great deal of sine-wave math is used to describe physical events. In reality, there is never, ever a true perfect sine wave produced by the natural world. It can’t be done. No perfectly defined anything can exist in the physical universe, such as circles, squares, sine waves, triangles, or anything that math could perfectly describe. It is a logical impossibility.
When artificially producing waves, Man tends to use oscillating things and thus, if the oscillating thing was perfect, a perfect sine wave would be produced. RC tank circuits naturally produce a pretty smooth sine wave (although never perfect). If that is used to produce a sound from a speaker, the sound wave (a compression wave similar to compression/magnetic affectance waves) will be an approximation of a dissipating sine wave. Light is hardly ever produced as a sine wave. It is “puffs” of affectance that are often in regular intervals. They are never actual sine waves, and hardly ever even close.
Light photons are normally (and almost always) produced by a puff of stored affectance escaping from between the orbiting electrons and the nucleus of atoms. To make a laser beam, they are produced at regular intervals and thus described, somewhat inaccurately, as a sine wave.
The little puffs tend to maintain their shape as long as they don’t run into anything substantial. When they pass through mass fields (gravity fields), they appear to alter their course, but in reality, they are being reformed (losing some affectance going one direction and picking up some that is going the new direction) such as to slowly migrate toward a different direction.
The following depict extremely small afflates or photons. Normal light photons are huge compared to particles.
I must unlearn what I have learned. I must unlearn the lies the quantum magi.
See, in my mind, I expected atoms to look like planets with electrons orbitting around them, except in real life they look like bubbles.
Well that is definitely true, but…
Atoms really do have electrons orbiting around them just as described long ago. But if you try to take a photo of an atom, the electrons are never in the same place. That causes the photo (using either gamma or electron spray) to show a smooth surface as the average location of the electron, being an even spread over the entire orbital surface.
So in a photo, an atom will LOOK LIKE a bubble or ball. But that is merely because of the photo process. They cannot take a true single frame snapshot of an atom (and certainly not a photon).