Eugene, look at what you are doing.
Fundamentally RM is a pretty simple concept set; “Distributed potentials endlessly changing each other with only one constraint”. But when you inject other theories into the simple, it is no longer simple. You are trying to inject other notions onto and into RM. RM is NOT built upon or an extension of QM, TEW, contemporary physics, or any other set of theories. RM starts fresh from the very beginning. It has some associations that support many popular notions, but it also can point out where a few common notions are necessarily wrong. RM is the “independent eye”, the “third eye”, on the way the universe works.
RM is supposed to be a “different beast”. Note that it is named “Metaphysics”, NOT “theoretical physics”.
You are INJECTING OLD ideas and confusion into RM. I have spoken very few “new ideas”.
I use the word “wave”. You proclaim and insist that the word means something very specific, even though no one else on the entire planet believes that. I explain what I mean by it and give you references wherein other people have described it in the same manner as I. You then say that because I used the word “wave” improperly by your standard, “affectance” must be a particle, not a wave, or at best random turbulence.
I tell you that RM need not concern itself with “frames of reference”. You reply that it MUST, “frames of reference are a universal idea”. So what? I HAVE TO inject THEIR “universal ideas” into MY construct even before I get barely started? Yeah, let’s start with the most confusing notions and then later explain how they weren’t really needed.
I show how and why affectance goes up and down in waves. You proclaim that it MUST “oscillate” REGULARLY, even though the definition never said anything about being regular and in fact in the case of FM cannot ever be regular and they even showed pictures of it being very irregular and not necessarily even repeating more than a single hump. While you are all concerned about “regularity”, you are entirely missing the whole point.
I explain the notion of the wave versus the medium in RM and how it is very similar to EM waves. You retort with, “Notice that waves with no medium (EM waves) are the ones that show the most sinusoidal behavior”. Firstly, I couldn’t care less if EM waves happen to be sinusoidal or not. The fact that they are taught using a basically sinusoidal shape and often used in that manner is totally irrelevant.
This is NOT a tutorial on contemporary physics notions, especially not notions that are merely the result of their teaching and use methods. They have NEVER proclaimed that ALL EM waves MUST BE perfectly sinusoidal. So you are attempting to bend RM into your own private set of misunderstandings.
I present the idea that “somewhat random” potential states necessarily cause a changing, “affecting”, of those states and that leads to waves forming in “somewhat random” directions. You retort with, “Another interesting feature is that both quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) agree that the EM force is carried by photons (a particle)”. Did I EVER say that RM is based on QM or TEW notions???
Again, I couldn’t care less about the notions of forces being carried by particles. In RM, “force” is merely the migration of affects upon potentials and has almost nothing to do with particles of any sort. Frankly, I don’t even know what “carrying a force” really means. It seems like a seriously conflated, imaginary, and irrational thought. Force is the “pushing” or “pulling”. How in hell do you carry a set amount of pulling? What? If I carry enough force in a bucket out to my car and bump it, the car will start following me around? But the point is that such a notion and theory is NOT a part of RM, so I don’t really care.
Consider the notion that THEY have been “wrong” (to some small degree). In the end, regardless of your word usage concerns, RM explains ALL OBSERVED phenomena. It makes no attempt to explain other people’s theories or concepts.
Are you not reading my posts?
A potential is an ABILITY. It is NOT a “thing”. It is NOT an “action”. It does NOT “move”. But what it DOES do is “actuate” or “actualize” into an “actual Affect” by actually changing the next potential next to it. At each location, the potentials end up getting changed (UP and DOWN in their ability, their “potential”). Because they are NOT TOTALLY RANDOM, they end up producing SOMEWHAT randomly directed waves (going up and down toward varied directions).
Actually producing a “regular pattern” requires an oscillating system. That comes MUCH later. Systems require constructs which require INERTIA and a lot of it.
Stop insisting on “the ONLY way” to swim and fighting the one trying to help you float. You have made something very easy into a mess of your own confusion.
The one post a day thing I can tolerate. But I am getting the impression that you are spending maybe 30 seconds actually thinking about what I have said before you begin “scrutinizing”.
You are doing EXACTLY what I warned you about. You are confusing a first grade arithmetic course such that you could NEVER even get into a calculus class, much less understand anything about it. Stop trying to judge it before you understand what it is saying. “Scrutinizing” REQUIRES that you first LEARN what is actually being said. If you go judging every word before you get off the ground, then you don’t… get off the ground. Is that your intent?
STOP your current thoughts and START OVER, “remove your sandals” before G.O.D.
I had to do it and so do you.
