I’m not saying it means something different in physics. I’m saying you’re wrong.
Why are you fixated on exact wording. Nobody uses words as stringently as you. Are you some kind of grammar nazi?
If I use the word “exerts” in the context of gravity you can consider it interchange with “creates”, “has”, “is the source of”, “bends space so as to create”, etc., etc., etc… The only time it would make sense to bring up the point about gravity as a force is if it actually made a relevant difference to what I’m saying.
I finally get why you’re splitting hairs about the wording surrounding “photon” vs. “EM wave”–it makes or breaks your theory–and that would be an example of a wording nuance that does make a difference to your point.
I’ll see if I can find some publications that state that EM waves or photons create gravity (I’m not going to fret over exact wording–the general idea will suffice). I’ll ask around if there have been any experiments done on single photons. But it’s pretty clear from what I’ve researched so far that scientists, generally speaking, believe that photons exert (create, have, are the source of, etc.) a gravitational force (bend space, etc.), and they do so because of the energy they carry.
No, it tells us that energy is equivalent to mass (times the square of the speed of light).
Why do I even bother.
Well, this establishes that affectance is the basic unit of existence, but I’m still unclear as to why a concentrated center of affectance has the effect we know of as gravity. I suppose I should start with a mass particle. How do various instances of affectance come together to form a mass particle, say an electron? I know you said it was a kind of “traffic jam” but how is one to imagine this in terms of affectance? Is each instance of affectance to be imagined as a metaphorical vehicle on a head on collision with the other? And would this imply that each affectance instance is sort of a particle itself? And what happens when they finally meet up with each other? Are they just at a stand off forever, or can they slide passed each other like waves? And if you have two “particles” (if I can call them that) of affectance in a traffic jam forming an electron, can the electron be undone simply by one of the affectance particles being given a little nudge, like pushing one vehicle to the side so that they can move passed each other?
Because you didn’t. You mentioned your theory of photons interacting to create some temporary rest mass and you became a real stickler over the question of whether photons exert gravity or EM waves exert gravity, but you left it to me to connect the dots.
The issue isn’t a slight misuse of a word. The issue is one of a completely misleading concept that is not true, yet being advertised. To “exert gravitational force” is NOT the same as to “add in the formation of a gravitation field”.
Those are very different things that should be kept separate.
And a photon does NONE of those.
I haven’t argued anything about a photon not being an EM WAVE. I thought is rather obvious that a photon is NOT a “STATIC electromagnetic field”, as one of your quotes mentioned.
Go ahead and do that, but realize that I have stated that via their interaction, they (plural) will create a “mass-field”, which if in the form of a gradient, will be a “gravity field”.
What you are supposed to be trying to find is any reputable publication that states that “a photon exerts or creates gravity”.
Only through their interaction with each other, NOT individually. A single photon does NOT produce, exert, create or really have anything to do with gravity other than to be affected by an already present gravity field. A single photon will migrate or “gravitate” within an already present gravity field.
It certainly does not, for heaven sake. Equations in physics are NOT definitions. They are equivalences of values, amounts, or measures. You can have energy without having the slightest amount of mass. Electric potential energy has absolutely no mass of any kind associated with it. Mass is one specific form of energy. If you change that form, you no longer have mass, yet still have energy.
You are “unclear about” that because you haven’t bothered to ask of it before. And it might be a bit deep off topic on this thread, but since I am constructing a video introduction into RM:AO, briefly (as I have stated for years):
Those are early clips from the middle of the video (already updated and won’t stay online for much longer). They are .gif’s, so it will repeat in case it goes too fast for you to read. And it doesn’t tell everything. There is much more to the video, of course. You can consider those green puffs to be light photons if you wish, although they were defined as “afflates” (affectance oblates). A light photon is actually merely an extremely large afflate, but behaves the same as its infinitesimal little brother.
Note that those photons are NOT “particles” in that there is nothing self-sustaining about them other than the fact that they are made of EMR that is all traveling in the same direction and thus each portion experiences the same affects, thus the puff inadvertently stays together (forgiving the very tiny fraction of self-sustaining property that is inherent to any photon). When a light photon encounters a molecule or more of mass, it usually splits up as portions get absorbed into the motion of the atoms if not into the orbital levels of the electrons.
This is just not true because before consciousness things still existed and it is a
relatively recent phenomenon too since it did not exist for most of cosmic time
James : what is the difference in principle between your Affectance ontology and the law of cause
and effect and Newtons Third Law Of Motion because they all appear to be saying the same thing ?
???
I don’t see any association at all between RM:AO and Newton’s 3rd law. For one thing, in RM:AO there are no forces at all, so the 3rd law stating that there is equal and opposite force is kind of moot.
And even though cause and effect are constant throughout RM:AO (as with all physics except QM), I don’t see what that has to do with anything being discussed … ?
That’s like a kind quantum communism – so to speak [bit like how super-cooled particles act as one perhaps]. you need something else which makes the difference, so that the unilateral forces become unbalance such that forces and behaviours then exist [universe]. As we do have universe, I’d conclude that there cannot be affectance as a self derivative causality or any such thing. It is more likely that ‘affectance’ or the information background theory [if that’s similar/same?], is more akin to a cosmic harmony field and the place in which all things find their mediums? There must be a universal medium, but I don’t know if it is that, because it must include everything spiritual and mental, and as the universe is infinite its medium isn’t going to be physical et al imho.
That is probably because you didn’t think about it enough.
To affect means to “cause change”. In the case of affectance, the change that is being caused is the change of potential-to-cause change: “affect upon affect”. That changing is what constitutes the physical universe. Anything that is changing is a part of the physical universe. And anything that isn’t changing is a part of a “Conceptual Realm” of ideals/concepts.
In both realms, physical and conceptual, everything within has affect within, else doesn’t exist within.
There can be no universe or existence at all without affect (hence “Affectance Ontology”).
Information Ontology (aka “Information Theory”) is a half of an ontology as you suggest because like QM, it doesn’t account for causality. RM:AO accounts for causality without forces as such because “affecting” is the “causing” of the changing that the physical universe is.
Whether or not they should be kept separate depends on your purposes. My purpose in this argument is simply to say that a photon adds in the formation of a gravitation field ( ← there, I used your wording). Whether that turns out to be in virtue of a force exerting itself or the bending of spacetime around the photon makes no difference to my purpose. It doesn’t even seem to make a difference to your purpose. You seem to be saying, not so much that gravity is the bending of spacetime as opposed to a Newtonian force, but that it requires two or more photons interacting such as to create rest mass as opposed to a single photon creating gravity directly.
If your making an issue out of this for some other, more general, purpose–like trying to correct common misconceptions wherever and whenever they arise–as opposed to correcting my current point, then all the power to you. Can’t promise I’ll be all gung ho about your campaign, but if I can be bothered, I might think about the exact wording I use if it will make you happy. Just realize that if you catch me using the word “exert” or “gravitational force” I’m not trying to insinuate that Newton was right (or QM) and Einstein was wrong. I’m just using common lay person parlance.
I understand this of your theory, which is why I wonder about your fixation on “exert” implying a force. Would it make any difference if I said a photon bends spacetime?
Which quote? All I know about a static EM field is that it doesn’t vary with time. Obviously, this means you would need more than one photon (but I think the same would be true for “dynamic” EM waves as any way of determining variance over time requires at least two measurements which means at least two photons.
Got it.
I understand this to be your view, not necessarily that of the scientific community at large. If you can assure me that all the experiments on record that relate to the topic at hand fit perfectly well with your theories, then I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but so far I can’t take you as an authority on this matter.
I agree. I’m not saying that a particular instance of energy is always identical to matter, just equivalent–as in, if you had X amount of EM energy, that’s equivalent to Y amount of matter. I’m also saying that because matter can be converted to other forms of energy, its gravity generating effect will carry over to the energy of that conversion (at least that’s what my research tells me).
Thanks for the videos James. Visuals really help a lot. Good demonstration on how particles are formed. The point that afflates will be diverted in the direction of more dense afflates answers my question, especially the animation of a whole field of afflates being “sucked in” towards the concentration of affectance forming a new particle. It’s like a small object being diverted on its trajectory through space as it passes by a large planet or sun, and the formation of particles from a whole field of afflates being pulled into the concentration of affectance is like two neutron stars orbiting each other in a tight embrace, which when seen through a telescope might seem like an interstellar “particle” (with a frequency no less).
One point I’m a bit confused about is how affectance passing through affectance has a delaying effect yet affectance will be diverted towards a greater density of nearby affectance. The delaying effect implies a slowing down of the delayed affectance’s speed. But the diverting effect implies a speeding up, at least along the direction of the diversion (which, by the looks of it in the video, brings the diverted affectance into the field of the denser affectance). Can you explain that?
From what I gather so far, it seems that these kinds of behaviors at the level of afflates and the kinds of behaviors we see at the astronomical level (what we call the effects of gravity) are the exact same phenomenon–gravity, in other words, is a fundamental pattern of behavior that is built into affectance, whether that’s elementary units of affectance (afflates) or massive concentrations of them (planets and stars). Although you did say that a single unit of affectance (like a photon) doesn’t generate gravity, but in all case where one such unit diverts the trajectory of another, we are dealing with more than one unit (and the divergence counts as what you called an “interaction”). Is rest mass, therefore, just this interaction? I mean, the diversion of the smaller unit of affectance when it passes close to the larger unit is sort of the “beginning” of a mass particle being formed–not enough divergence for the smaller unit of affectance to be completely “pulled in”, but perhaps enough for a very brief emergence of what would look like “rest mass” (btw, is this how you explain virtual particles?).
As I mentioned earlier, “only at its exact location. It does not have ANY extended field surrounding it (unlike a mass particle).”
Except that free radiant energy does not have inertia or gravity.
That depends. The surrounding “gravity field” is independent energy from the mass particles. A mass particle, if placed into free space, will collect a new gravity field around it from the free floating surrounding affectance. You have to consider that when equating the amount of energy involved. There is “zero-point energy” involved in certain situations (energy seemingly arising from nowhere).
I just realized that in that old clip, an “afflate” isn’t defined.
Afflate ≡ a minuscule, oblate, non-specific, portion of affectance.
An afflate is not a particle or actually physically independent. It is merely an extremely small portion chosen by the observer to tag. It doesn’t exist as a separate entity, such as a particle or an atom. It is like pointing to a small handful of a cloud and watching that one portion shift around. It is a “virtual particle” in that it is merely chosen to be considered and observed as if it was a particle, even though there is no discrete distinction between it and it’s surroundings. It is merely a very, very small amount of the affectance field with no specific size and chosen for sake of study.
To have an actual gravity field, the affectance must slope from a relatively low density field to a higher density field. Merely the presence of affectance is not enough. There absolutely must be a gradient. If you want to defeat gravity, merely remove the gradient in the field - make it uniform. You don’t have to remove the energy or affectance. The slope is the gravity field (and another reason why a photon could never generate such a field - it doesn’t stick around).
And yes, all gravitation (or more properly “migration”) occurs due to the imbalance in the surrounding affectance field. Electric charge effects occur for a very similar reason concerning the affectance field. Particles relocate their center because the field is more dense on one side than the other. The higher density causes the particle to reconstitute itself (which it is constantly doing) a little closer into the more dense region. Between two masses, the field is much denser, thus both masses migrate into the space between the two. They are not actually attracted to each other. They are attracted into the more dense field. If you can create a more dense field on the opposite side as the other mass, the one mass will move away from that other mass into your more dense field. The nucleus of atoms form by that same process.
As far as the diverting into the more dense field effect, think about a bicycle passing you as you grab hold of the riders shoulder near you, slowing it down. Which direction would the bicycle veer? Toward you. When you slow the right side of a light photon (or any afflate) more than the left (realize that the photon is passing through the field, not glancing off of it) the entire photon is slowed more on the right side, thus it veers to that right said. Once free of the slope, it continues straight in the new direction.
You can think of a mass-particle somewhat like a slow motion whirlpool or tornado wherein the center is much, much slower than the periphery. The particle acts as a slow-motion or time-warp trap for portions of affectance (EMR) passing by. That is what we call “rest mass”. And that effect is what causes the Relativity issue of time slowing down in strong gravity fields (“time dilation” effect). And then because of such slowing, the distance between minuscule peaks becomes shorter, thus giving the effect of containing more substance within a shorter distance (“length contraction” effect). So the theory of General Relativity will yield accurate measures, but not because of any “warping of the fabric of spacetime”, but rather merely because affectance slows/retards itself and both time and distance measurements are affected.
Such self-retarding behavior is due to the fact that affectance is causing changes in PtA as fast as possible and when more affectance enters the same space, it is trying to make additional change to that same PtA level. Changes that are already transpiring as fast as possible cannot be sped up, thus whatever affectance is trying to propagate through that space, must simply wait its turn. That effect is what causes “inertia” and also what causes what you know as the “magnetic field” - a compressed affectance field due to the affectance being held back and piling up. When the retarded affectance field finally escapes the denser field, it “springs back”, losing its compression, and producing what you know as “electromagnetic induction”.
Fair enough. Now would it be fair to say that the affectance “puff” (as you call it) just is the warping of spacetime in that very small region? And would the perimeters of that tiny “dip” in space (so to speak) mark the boundaries of what can be affected by that puff and what can’t? As in, you cross the perimeter and you are affected, but don’t cross it, and you are not affected. Or would that be affecting? Or are the puffs mutually affecting each other, like gravity? But in any case, anything outside that dip in space is unaffected/ing–it’s as if it doesn’t exist to the other puff.
Furthermore, I assume once a smaller puff crosses the boundary into a bigger puff, it is affected such as to diverge (as per your video).
Can I call these things puffons?
Well, apart from the “no specific size” bit, that all makes sense. So afflates are not affectance-particles. May I suggestion puffons?
Well, that answers my question from above. Sounds like you’re saying there is no gradient with a single photon, but at the same time you said (in an earlier post) that "You can claim that a photon “bends (actually compresses) spacetime, but that is only true at its precise location, not at all surrounding it.”
So what do you mean by “its precise location”? I’ve been imagining it to be like a “dip” in space, like a bell shape that tapers off towards the perimeter (where tapering would be a gradient). I thought your point was that at least it has a perimeter (an extremely small one), unlike gravity which supposedly (from what I recall) tapers off indefinitely (to infinity, I guess). ← Is this not what you’re saying? Are you saying the bending of spacetime at the photon’s “precise location” is more all-or-nothing, like a cylindar shape?
If so, I guess I can’t think of an affectance puff as just a dip in space. But then what is the gradient I see in the affectance particles in the video (bright green at the center, tapering off into dark green at the perimeter, and black in the surroundings)? Is this simply an “affectance field” which is not to be confused with the warping of spacetime around it? Does a photon not have that? I’m confused.
And this “MAD” acronym you’re using in the video–Minimum Anentropic Distance–is this how you explain same charges repelling? If you take two electrons, for example, and separate them far enough part, there might be some mutual gravitational attraction which pulls them back together, but only to a point, that point being when the mutual repulsion of their negative charges pushes them apart. Would this be because, below that minimum distance, there ends up being too little space between them to carry a large amount of affectance (though what little there is is still extremely dense) and more affectance outside the region between them?
And if so, how do you explain the attractive force between an electron and a proton?
I see. So does this mean that affectance can’t overlap? Like vehicles stuck in a traffic jam, you can’t have one vehicle passing through other? In other words, it’s not like a wave that can pass right over another wave, amplifying it at its crest? I would have thought it could seeing as how you can have one puff of affectance moving through at least the periphery of another where it gets diverted.
In my mind, this leads to the question: what happens when a whole collection of affectance puffs accumulate, as in your animation of a particle forming? Do they eventually overlap at the center, creating a more powerful affectance (a higher PtA) or do they simply remain caught in the vicinity of the original puff, creating a bigger field of affectance like a longer stretch of vehicles in a traffic jam? I’m imagining something like a black hole for comparison. A black hole will grow more powerful (in terms of gravity) the more matter it sucks in, and also grow bigger (in terms of the size of the event horizon). With affectance, would the result be equivalent to both these? Only one? Neither?
If you want to try to use the Spacetime/Relativity Ontology, then yes, a puff of affectance, whether light photon or tiny little afflate amount, would translate into a compression bubble (a “dip” or a “bump”) in spacetime (but note that Spacetime/Relativity ontology includes no cause for such a thing). And when two such bubbles cross paths, they become a larger bump, temporarily slowed by the crossing (again without cause in Relativity Ontology). Try to keep in mind that an afflate has no actual/real border. An afflate is merely a chosen portion (imaginary border) of the affectance field stuff (the rapid changing of the minuscule PtA levels; “spikes”, “pulses” or “noise”).
But also realize that space IS those pseudo-bubbles, thus in this following anime of “empty” space, the yellow stuff would be your low voltage compression bubbles and the blue would be your higher voltage compression bubbles of spacetime. In RM:AO the yellow is the negative/decreased PtA and the blue is the positive/Increased PtA. Remember that “affectance density” is the amount of changing within a region, not the PtA level.
“Empty” Space:
Take any small portion of that stuff to make an “afflate”. I used from 20,000 to 200,000 afflates (I forgot how many now) to make that 3D volume of emulated affectance or “empty” space. Every afflate is made of afflates because an afflate is merely a tiny portion of affectance, not a discrete entity. And no matter how tiny of a portion you take, it looks and behaves just like a larger portion all the way down to infinitely small. Nothing behaves any differently at all until a particle forms. A sub-atomic monoparticle is the very lowest structural form in the universe (roughly spherical).
And you can call them “puffons” if you want, just don’t confuse them with the tamps.
I’m kind of busy at the moment. I’ll get to the rest of your post later.
derived from the second law of thermodynamics if I remember correctly. There is nothing in existence which does not have entropy – so I am informed, but if we could measure accurately then it wouldn’t exist…
There are only 3 fundamental concerns from which the entire universe is formed:
PtA level (aka “static voltage”)
Affectance density (amount and level of changing PtA, aka “degree of mass”)
3D spatial geometry.
The formation and location of a traffic jam of affectance noise, a particle, is determined by the retardation of the affectance propagation. The retardation of propagation is determined by how much changing of the PtA is taking place. And that changing can be in one of two forms:
Density - the average amount of up and down changing within a region (anywhere from 0+ to 1-) - “neutral”.
Level - the range of the PtA level changing taking place across a region (eg. from 10 eV to 20 eV) - “positive” or “negative”
So far, we have been talking about merely the density issue causing migration of neutrally charged particles (“gravitation”). When a particle has what we call a “charge potential” (a voltage), its migration is far more dependent upon the change in level issue of the PtA (how much from low to high across a region) over the density issue (how much noise within the region). The direction and speed of migration is always an issue of the difference in propagation retardation (of the affectance that is always coming and going in and out of the particle) from one side to the other. And that difference in propagation retardation is an issue of the gradient slope between most and least. The greater the slope, the stronger and faster the migration.
With charged particles, the retardation of propagation is primarily caused by the PtA level slope from the center of the particle outward. Wherever that slope is greater is where the particle center will migrate. This occurs due to each minuscule portion of increasing or decreasing PtA pulse having to change the PtA level to a higher or lower level as it climbs or descends the slope. A stronger slope requires a greater degree of change from one point to the next than would be required if the slope was flat.
That anime is trying to express that the stronger/sharper slope to the right of particle B is causing a greater propagation retardation of the minuscule pulses than on the left (note that the little pulses meet slightly to the right of center each time). And it is that sharper slope that is causing the particle to reconstitute slightly more to the right as time passes. The charged particles don’t actually repel or attract each other (there are no forces involved), rather each particle affects the PtA level in the region such as to establish a difference in the PtA slopes and the particles merely migrate in the direction of the greater slope so as to maintain their anentropic shelter.
The slope between a positive and a negative particle is even stronger and thus both particles more strongly migrate to that middle region, not “attracted” to each other, but to the region between them. And the closer they get, the sharper the slope and thus the faster and stronger they migrate (which is why they reflect an “inverse r-squared attractive force” between them).
In a sense, physicists have been wrong from the very beginning in thinking that particles attract or repel each other and that mass attracts mass. The reality has always been that particles, by their natural process of maintaining anentropic sheltering (maintaining themselves against entropy), migrate into the greater changing of either the PtA level (difference in “voltage”) or the Affectance density (difference in “mass” density).
I don’t know if that vid-clip is showing properly. It isn’t showing properly on my browser today, although has in the past.
The mass attraction effect is much, much weaker than the charge attraction/repulsion effect. And electrons (“monoparticles”) have extremely low mass such that even extremely close to each other, the gravitational effect would be very small. For particles to actually adhere to each other, they have to be forced together (assuming that they didn’t originally form close together) and also acquire much more mass, which automatically occurs when they are close enough to be called “touching”.
What they call the “strong force” is the effect of getting two particles close enough to each other that the gravitational migration is stronger than the charge repulsion effect (as shown in the above anime if it is working on your browser). Again, in reality, there is no actual force at all. And also because the particles are so very close, they automatically adhere more affectance as they form a mutual anentropic shelter and thus the combined particle (a “polyparticle”) has a “greater mass” than merely the sum of their individual masses. The extra mass was named a “gluon particle” even though there is no third particle present (which explains why they have never actually seen a gluon).
No. Affectance always overlaps affectance and thereby creates more propagation retardation (“higher density”, “thicker space”, or “compressed spacetime”).
The anentropic sheltering determines how large a particle can be. The black hole is so large that it cannot reach a stable anentropic size and thus merely keeps growing. My guess is that eventually they either break apart due to instability in rotation or they collide with each other causing a serious “Baby Bang” and a new galaxy.
I try to avoid personal appearances.
Please let me know if some of these vid-clips are not showing up (or whether it is merely my own browser).
So I take it there is no fundamental particle in your ontology. I remember you did say that affectance is infinitely divisible. From what I gather, affectance can take the form of particles (which you simulate in some of your videos) but these shouldn’t be taken to be fundamental, correct?
This part is somewhat obscure to me. The first graph (density) seems like a wave whose frequency increases as it moves to the right (a function of time?), while the second graph (level) seems like a steady (though not linear) rise in affectance level. The first graph, you called an “ever changing PtA level” meaning that the potential to affect in the region keeps going from positive to negative at an increasing rate. The second graph, you called the “affectance level” meaning a steady rise in the amount of affectance in the area. Assuming the graphs are related, I interpret them to mean that if the PtA at a location is changing rapidly, then there must be a lot of affectance in the area (a second-order level of affectance, vis-a-vis your affectance upon affectance).
I take it both graphs represent the conditions under which retardation takes place–when the PtA level is changing at a fast rate and when the amount of affectance in the area is high (and both are the same?).
That makes sense. With a steeper slope, the affectance particles migrate towards the particle more slowly, causing the affectance particles migrating from the other side to meet them a little on the right side of the peek.
But are you saying it’s the particles themselves that cause the steepness of the slope upon each other?
I’m not sure how sheltering forms around a particles, but it sounds like you’re saying that the strong force is really just gravity.
Like I said in my PM to you, your videos are coming through fine.
Why do I even bother.
