But even with the experience of red, rdns aren’t entirely clear. 20 rdns is obviously more red than 10 rdns, but what does that make 10 rdns? Closer to orange? To purple? Is it simply red with less saturation, making it closer to gray? Is it less bright, making it closer to black?
I’m not really interested in red, obviously, but I have questions similar to this about how adding more PtA or removing PtA changes the scenario conceptually. I think I get that PtA is potential to affect, but if we’re saying the falling apple has 10 PtA, what would it mean to bump that up to 20 PtA? Is that a measure of how strong the impact of the falling apple is on whatever it affects? Does it increase as it gets closer to Newton’s head (because it’s potential to affect Newton comes ever closer to actualizing)?
I think that you are trying to over detail it all long before you are ready for that. You are lusting for some conclusion. Right now, all we have in the ontology is affect. That is all that exists. It comes in greater and lesser amounts, “PtA”. It refers to the ability to change those amounts in other affects = “affect upon affect”.
There are no inches, joules, tonnes, fat people, or anything else right now to relate it to except in an analogous way. In the long run, all of the same words and principles can be applied on any level; psychology, sociology, economics, whatever. And at that point, obviously such units must relate to something “concrete” in your eyes. But we aren’t there yet.
In your example, more potential of the apple would have merely meant that Newton could have been further from having an idea-propagation story and the higher PtA apple would have been enough to get him there anyway. Perhaps he really had to get hit by two apples before it dawned on him (not that the story has any truth to it anyway).
Ok, I think I understand. So PtA is just the object’s potential to have the affects that it does. I take it this means a measure of n PtA depends on what particular affect we’re talking about, right? The apple may have 10 PtA to realize Newton’s idea-propagating affect, but maybe only 1 PtA to turn him into a goose (or maybe negative PtA?).
This all depends on circumstance too, doesn’t it? Suppose a wallet with $100 is left on the sidewalk. Three people live in the neighborhood: Jim, Jody, and Bob. If they’re all at home while the wallet is sitting there, the wallet has (let’s say) 5 PtA to make any of Jim, Jody, or Bob rich. Then Jody goes out for a walk. Now the chances of her stumbling upon the wallet and thus becoming rich goes up. So it has (let’s say) 6 PtA for making Jody rich but only 3 PtA for making Jim or Bob rich. Then she turns down the street where the wallet lays. The PtA changes again: 8 PtA for Jody, and 1 PtA for Jim and Bob. Then she finds it and the PtA for her rises to (oh, let’s say) 10. So the PtA not only depends on what affect we’re talking about but what the circumstances in a particular moment. Am I right?
In my world, objects don’t have potentials. Potential’s have objects. A Potential is a situation.
An electron is not a particle with a negative potential, but a negative potential that has acquired an particle, a memory cell. And has become “objective”, an “object”.
A physical sub-atomic particle is a memory of an situational event that might have been positive, negative, or neutral. When a situation gains a particle, it has gained memory. They are the same thing. The particle (“memory cell”) stores a record of the situation that brought the particle into existence. It is similar to a “concrete” scar left by someone sticking their nose in a dangerous place.
Your engrams, are the particles of your mind.
There is a potential for wealth and Jody, Jill, and Bob are nearby objects.
Let’s see how far I can get through this part without having to go too much into the Cardinalities of Infinity and hyperreal math bit.
Propagation of an affect refers to an affect traveling from points A to B to C to D, and so on. The question concerns why the travel speed isn’t infinite. Why does it take any time at all? In Science, it is merely accepted that it does and a “physical constant” is given to represent why, ε0 and µ0. In physics as long as there is a “physical constant”, one need not ask any further. RM has no such luxury. So what is preventing said affect from traveling faster?
The bottom line is simply that it really is traveling at an “infinite speed” (not the perfect terminology for it). It just doesn’t get to an infinite distance by doing so.
Before you can figure out how fast an affect can get from point A to some distance point, you need to know how fast it can get even to the next point over, point B. There are an infinite number of points between any two points and by definition, each requires its prior point to be affect before it can be affected by the point. And that takes time, but how much?
If it took, for example, one second for affect A to change B and then one more to change C and so on, the math is pretty trivial. There are an infinite number of points between A and any destination point (let’s call it Z). So we have;
1 second times infinite = ?
Infinite seconds obviously.
So if an affect took 1 second to get to its next infinitesimal point, it would take an infinite amount of time to get to any point Z. That seems to be the opposite of the question of why it isn’t infinitely fast. So how fast must it get to B such that it doesn’t take and infinite amount of time to get to point Z? IF “c” is going to be some non-infinite number and the affect must travel through in infinite number of points to cause c to be real, then we have;
c = infinite * t0
where t0 is the time required for an affect to get from A to B.
So for any real number, c, what must t0 be?
Common math (not the professional kind) puts t0 = 0, being the only way for the affect to be able to gain any ground at all.
So what this is saying, is that in order for an affect to actually propagate at any speed at all such as to get anywhere at all, it must affect its next infinitesimal point in that direction in zero time.
Affecting the next point in zero time simply means that there is nothing stopping the affect and it is affecting infinitely fast, but it has an infinite number of points to affect. So its propagation time would be;
Infinite / infinite = ?
Well, that can be anything. But at least it isn’t infinite nor zero. It is some constant, “c”.
With me so far?
EDIT: Sorry, I had a " / " where an " * " was to be.
What does it mean for an affect to travel through space? Is it like the apple falling in that the apple carries its PtA with it?
Sorta,
I get the idea that multiplying 0 by infinity is going to give you something weird. I mean, they say that one cannot divide by infinity–that it is “undefined”–and one can see why:
What is 1/2? It’s half.
What is 1/3? It’s a third.
What is 1/4? It’s a quarter.
It doesn’t take long to notice that as the denominator approaches infinity, the fraction approaches 0. What this means is that if you take that 1 (the numerator) and you keep dividing it up into an infinite number of bits, each bit will be 0.
So one must ask: does adding an infinit number of 0s equal 0, or do you get that 1 you started with?
Now the same reasoning can be applied to any numerator: 2/2, 2/3, 2/4… 5/2, 5/3, 5/4… 391/2, 391/3, 391/4…
So does adding an infinit number of 0s equal 2? Does it equal 5? Does it equal 391?
Well, I don’t know. It equals something weird for sure.
You seem to think we can say “c” is that weird number. But why c? Why not 2c? Or c/3?
To me it is more like the PtA carries its apple with it, but yeah.
What I am more directly talking about is the PtA of a single point of an electromagnetic wave propagating through space. In its most fundamental form in physics, PtA is “electric potential”, exactly the same as what Coulomb, Ampere, and all of those guys were talking about. But at this point in the reasoning, we can’t assume that. Later we discover that such is the case, but there is a slight philosophical distinction between"affectance potential" and “electric potential”. And RM:AO uses its defined logic as a standard for measurements, not experimental data. RM:AO can’t be changed by changing political propaganda leaders whereas standard measures in physics can be.
And a propagating electromagnetic wave, “EMR”, defines the “speed of light” in a “perfect vacuum” in physics. In RM:AO there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, but it makes a good starting point for explanations, much like the “void” in Genesis.
Exactly. Although in RM:AO there is a different way of handling such things by defining a “standard infinity”, “InfA”;
So in RM:AO;
1 / infA = 1 infinitesimal, not zero.
And actually in RM:AO absolute zero doesn’t even exist, ref: Quality vs Quantity
And the powers of infA are the cardinalities of infinity from infA raised to the power of -infinite to +infinite.
Yes. And the reason that we can say simply “c” is that later we discover that the entire physical universe is made from that propagation value. If by magic the speed of light were to suddenly double uniformly throughout the entire universe, no one would notice. Nothing would change at all. All sizes of all things are only what they are because of that propagation value. Thus if that value were to double, the value of a meter would instantly double with it yielding the exact same numerical value in meters per second. The entire universe would merely get bigger. For all we could ever know, that speed of light could be jumping all around all of the time. As long as it does it uniformly throughout all space, nothing would change and there would be no way to measure any change at all. It could validly be said that the speed of light (more appropriately the “speed of affect”) creates the universe.
So the reason that the speed of light, c, is 299,792,458 meters per second is because one meter per second is the c / 299,792,458. The speed of light is the actual universal standard. A meter is just what someone chose on a bad day.
And in RM:AO the speed of Affect is 1.
But don’t ask me how long a meter is in RM:AO.
I need a better computer to figure that out.
Interesting… do you conceive it possible that affects can travel all by themselves through space? I mean, I find that hard to imagine: the very word “affect” implies a something affecting something else. But for there to be the affect without the “somethings” seems nonsensicle to me.
Uh… I’m gonna have to wait 'til we get there.
You know about light cones, right James? Light cones are always drawn at a 45 degree angle. This can be taken to imply that time also travels at c.
It’s almost as if a photon were like a pixel on a computer monitor: the program running on this computer only allows changes in which pixel turns on if that pixel is adjacent to another pixel that has just turned off (i.e. no spontaneous “jumps” from one pixel to another remote one). And the speed at which such changes can occur is limited by the clock speed of the computer. Thus there is a maximum speed.
Light cones are drawn this way to reflect the constancy of light to all possible measurement. James is advocating a speed of light that is constant to an absolute space. He quite clearly rejects the idea that a translation from one reference frame to another should be anything but Galilean, so light cones should be skewed accordingly in any reference frame that is not the absolute reference frame.
Why every attempt to measure this fails is a mystery for James to solve.
Do you conceive that EMR can travel all by itself through space?
… exactly the same thing.
For thousands of years, people have been telling the world that the “material world” is merely an illusion.
They have been right (more or less). What you call a material particle is merely a congestion of “affect upon affect”, or in physics terms, EMR. That is the only material existence there is.
The “something else” is the other affects; “affect upon affect”. That is all an EM wave is.
So you have trouble with affects traveling through space, but you believe in time traveling through space???
That’s a new one.
Except that the universe has no system clock to regulate such propagation.
And your “pixel” is merely an affect. There is no actual material pixel there. It is merely a temporary bright spot in a location. An affect is merely a temporary change in potential at a location, a “bright spot”.
An oscilloscope is a better analogy, no defined pixels.
Yes. To perceive is to interpret, to measure. This means to quantity into units, those units being what is selected by both entities as whatever is of their respective natures so as to allow coordination, “valuing”. Each entity coordinates with itself, I.e. self-values, as well as coordinates its unit-terms with other entities to the degree this is possible, I.e. mutual valuing. This forms selves and worlds.
I’m interested in these issues you see with the dominant theories, but Einsteins field equations allow for accurate predictions where Newtons do not. They also EXPLAIN this correction. Lorentz transformations are dealing with measurement skew, but time and length contraction are really happening. “Reality” is not one solid, immutable objectivity where units of measure or of experience are universal.
I see no reason to conclude you have demonstrated the erroneousness of Einstein’s ideas. If anything his rejection of “quantum mechanical magic” is something you and he agree on. I think RM should be able to reconcile Einstein’s Relativity, and also RM can add to Einstein’s conceptual interpretations of, for instance, gravity and light.
You know those field equations are able to describe in very precise detail what is measured, using multiple physical constants and various tensor analyses. Does RM have any equivalent equations to likewise plug in space and time coordinates, choose a measurement system, utilize gravitational, cosmological and c constants to predict successful measurements of, for example, the measured bending of light around a star? Or Einstein’s equation for time dilation, quite simple actually, that successfully predicts measured changes in the recording of time by identical clocks where one is shot into space while the other is not? Where are these RM equivalents? Or do you accept these equations as “mostly right” but claim they are imperfect, and you haven’t yet formulated the more perfect equations?
Yes, I am aware of all that. What I meant was, show me more evidence. But you’re already doing a good job of that.
Gabriel? Are you speaking metaphorically or literally here?
Let’s stick to the physics. My question is specific to where Einstein erred.
I’m going to jump ahead now, to some things you’ve been elaborating with gib. I like your definition of particles as “memories” of the conditions that brought them into existence. Viewing this through the wavelet perspective is very useful. If c is th speed of change, it must represent a physical statement about wavelets themselves, their changing-interacting being “instant” but also always constrained by other wavelets around, and other “particles” as conditions of EMR. “c” then must be only an observation of the upper limit for change to occur given a minimum of limitation of affect by other affects; since we know there is always SOME limitation as “space” is never empty.
This is all very cool. Especially I want to make sure I understand your RM take on gravity; “gravity” is the fact that there is progressively less limitation ("space, distance) between increasingly massive objects because those objects necessarily, being massive, are bundles of affects “absorbing” outside affects from one direction while “releasing” them in more or less equal proportion from another direction-- this is the particle’s “inertia”. Absorption/discharge of affects by matter will cause rippling changes in surrounding affects, forcing them into alignment with those affects of which the object itself is mostly composed. This creates an “easier path” (less noise, “friction”) for objects to move between other objects rather than not between other objects, thus the tendency of matter to be “attracted” to other matter.
Am I getting that right. I’m still struggling with visualizing this a bit.
Also, I’m wondering about wavelets themselves—are they like waves in water where the molecules move up and down but transfer the wave laterally thereby? Do wavelets actually move laterally or are they just “vibrating points” that conduct lateral waves? And are wavelets ever created or destroyed?
If you were to propose a perpetual motion machine, all of Science would tell you that you are wrong and that it has been proven that such things are totally impossible.
If you went back to ancient Rome and tried to explain to a bartender how it is that you know that his gods were not real, you would make very little if any progress and lose a great deal of respect in the process.
I would rather stick to what I know is real rather than tell you of your false gods, though they might not be called “gods”. If you think that special relativity is true (“proven” and all of that) then get on the Stopped Clock Paradox thread and show your logic (scriptural quotes are meaningless). You might also want to check out the “Corrected Lorentz” page (concerning your question about making the equations a little more accurate).
A perception is merely a comparison of affects upon oneself; something increased, decreased, is longer, shorter, or changed in some way from what it was perceived as before, your memory of it. Change the affects and you change the perception. Put on rose colored glasses and the world changes… or does it? If something appears shorter, is it really shorter? How would you know, especially if you know that you are also changing?
The “wavelets” are most like compression waves of sound in air or water (as opposed to surface waves). Mass is a high density of the changing of PtA, “high density Affectance”, compressed. Electric charge is a high density of the PTA itself as either a higher potential concentration or a lower potential concentration, positive or negative (density = amount within a given volume).
I think that you have made it more complicated than it is.
A particle is constantly gaining and losing its affectance (those “wavelets” of random ultra-small size). It ONLY begins to move due to gaining more on one side than the other. Its center gets relocated off to one side. Gravity is merely an aberrant perception of the migration. There is nothing else to it; no “forces”, no “bending spacetime”, no “resistance”, no “easier path”. It is “attracted to” another particle merely because that other particle caused the affectance on that side to be higher. It is that simple. And that effect comports to the measured equations for gravity (I tried it out).
Once in motion, it remains in motion simply because the affectance that makes it up was headed in that direction and has no reason to stop, so the center of the concentration of affectance, the “particle” merely moves with the affectance. There is no resistance or “easier path” involved. If you want to change its motion, you have to counter the affectance, give if counter affect. The amount of affect that you have to give it in order to make it change its direction or speed is called the particle’s “momentum” (or “inertia” if standing still).
Ok, I understand the RM explanation for gravity. Thanks.
In the example of a compression wave in water, if this is analogous to wavelets, then what are wavelets moving through? What is “waving”? Other waves? And what do those wave through? Still more waves?
If you picture a wave, it represents the movement of something, an occillation. The “back and forth” is what transfers motion successively, but the wave is only an expression of the movements of an underlying, fluid medium. So how does that fit with wavelets, if they are waving through each other? What is the “base unit” of a wavelet?
Also, lets get more specific on particles. Example: hydrogen (keep it easy for now): proton and electron. According to RM the proton is positive affectance and the electron is negative affectance? These are each bundles of waves of affect with either a positive PtA or a negative PtA? And why does the electron “orbit”?
I guess I want to understand the RM explanation for EM. I recall you stating that positive and negative charge mean positive or negative PtA, but what is “positive” and “negative” mean here? Are these more than arbitrary terms to designate the two sides of an opposing force?
Regarding the stopped clock paradox, I can offer again my thoughts on why this is not paradoxical, however I’d like to instead offer my RM interpretation of why it is not a paradox. Basically I need to understand RM better in order to see how this works with of conflicts with Relativity.
While I appreciate the sentiment, this is not quite correct: Einstein’s own work assumes that Newtonian mechanics is very accurate and it relies on this in order to produce evidence. Einstein essentially adopts all of the work that Newton did in describing the relationships between the presence of mass and forces. Einstein then shows how adopting his theory makes our predictions more accurate.
I had thought to mention that “unlike water or air, the waves of PtA have no sub-components”. And that is actually one of the many reasons the Michelson-Morley experiment was flawed - they presumed that all waves must behave as water or sound would.
The compression or concentration is of the changing of PtA. There is merely more changing of potential in the volume. There is more “energy” in the volume, much like a higher frequency EMR wave. The high frequency EMR wave is made of the same thing that a low frequency wave is, merely tighter, or more concentrated. But of what is it made?
In physics, an EMR wave is made of EM and is a wave of it. But what is the EM made of? Smaller EM?
In physics, EMR is not made of anything but EMR and not even smaller bits of it. In physics, a wave is simple (until they get into the finer details). In RM:AO, every wave is made of smaller waves and in the case of EMR, is made of smaller EMR waves that are ususally irrelevant… until you get into the finer details necessary to understand WHY the EMR is doing what it is doing.
PtA, the Potential-to-Affect or “Affect upon affect”.
This is exactly the same concern that has been expressed for thousands of years. At the base of ALL things, is something that would appear as nothing, so they called it “spirit”, meaning a behavior (an “affecting”). All observable materials are made from that which is not observable except as a consequence. One can only perceive the changes. The idea that there is some object, not changing itself (like the water molecule), that produces the changes (the water wave) is merely imagination except in the macroscopic world (which is what makes it the macroscopic world - because there are still more components under the surface).
At the very base of existence, there are no objects, only affects. And that is difficult for the natural mind to grasp because it is designed to hand things that it can see, “objects”. But you accept electric potential don’t you? Of what is electric potential made? Other objects? No. It is merely what it is, the potential to have affect, to change something. Literally even Moses knew of this, “One cannot see God, the cause of all things, but merely His footsteps in the sand.”
That is a far more complex discussion, but the bottom line is what I stated just prior, that the ONLY reason any particle ever moves is because it is gaining more affectance on one side than the other.
In the case of “why doesn’t the electron fall into the proton?”, the answer happens to be the same as why the electron forms in the first place - too much changing happening at once. We haven’t gotten into the exact process that limits how much changing can take place at once (we kind of need that before we talk about the “weak-force” of physics).
Good question and not as arbitrary as one might think.
Positive PtA and/or electric potential (voltage) refers to “higher than the ambient”. And negative means “lower than the ambient”. But there is a presumption in physics that the ambient is arbitrary. In RM:AO, there is a “so low you ran out” of “potential to affect anything”.
In the vacuum of space, every point in space is fairly close to the same as the rest of space. That is what forms “no ability to exist or have affect”. There must be differences in the potential to affect in order for there to be potential to affect. And there must be considerable PtA in order to form even a single particle. That is why you don’t see or experience anything in space (relatively speaking of course).
RM is totally and ONLY about Definitional Logic.
RM:AO is about RM applied to Affects, “Affectance”.
RM:VO would be about RM applied to Values (if we could ever get confirmation on definitions).
So in that paradox, merely apply total logic to the defined scenario and you will be on track with RM.
If you are worried about or have faith in others, you will have internal dissonance and not be able to resolve it.
It is a test of your faith in YOURSELF over the temptation to hold onto fear or faith in others.
Logic is all about maintaining faith in oneself, one’s own “defined concepts” (“A is A”), not presumptions.
