Is a decrease to zero potential possible? Why can’t a PtA remain unaffected, as in repel an affect? If there is an underlying intelligence “guiding” existence, why couldn’t it divert potential or hold potential back from change?
I’d forgotten about posting in this thread. 
A decrease PtA to zero is a decrease to nonexistence. Existence is made entirely of changing PtA. Nonexistence doesn’t exist. 
But yes, for an infinitely short moment at an infinitely small point, it is theoretically possible for PtA to be brought to zero. It could not stay there simply because the combination of waves of affectance that brought it there are all propagating. And also, no two adjacent points of PtA can be infinitely identical.
Every PtA is surrounded by PtA and PtA is the ability to affect. How could any one PtA avoid being affected?
And realize that PtA is not a thing. PtA is a measure of the situation of the surrounding changes in PtA (the ambient affectance).
Why are you asking me…that was my question to you? 
And it may not be one.
Dispersement patterns and force are decided by what? Unguided potential? The cause doesn’t decide the potential…the change?
This all may be over my head keeping it theoretical rather than physical, since it only makes sense to me in terms of physicality.
The question was rhetorical. Read the statement just before it for the answer.
You realize that light photons entering your eyes is what allows for you to see, right? Have you ever thought about how many photons pass by in front of you that do not enter your eyes? There are billions every instant passing by your eyes in every direction, yet you see none of them. Affectance is like that (a portion of the affectance IS that … “photons”).
If you could grab a great many of those photons (or radio waves) and compress them all down into a tiny little spec, you would form a mass particle. The affectance is made of waves or pulses of PtA (or spiking voltages and EMR) propagating in every random direction. There is no truly empty space at all, ever, even in the deepest outer space. Physical reality is a soup of affectance that is at times extremely condensed into mass particles, but mostly just randomly propagating electromagnetic radiation, EMR … literally everywhere throughout the entire universe. All space and all matter is made of that.
Interestingly, before the relativity theory of 1905/1916, the most accepted cosmological theory was the ether theory; and if someone wants to imagine how the universe is full of affectance according to RM:AO, it is helpful to imagine how the universe is full of ether according to the ether theory. But anyway, ether theory and RM:AO are not the same.
Yes, quite true. The distinction of the Affectance Field is;
A) Affectance is provable
B) Affectance is understandable
The aether field was speculated in a typical superstition fashion of trying to make sense of other known events. The problem is that they were merely speculating that there must be a field of some kind (and now they have invented the Higgs Field for that purpose) yet didn’t understand it enough to properly test the hypothesis. They ended up speculating that the aether field must behave this way and that. After testing to find that there was no such behavior, rather than speculating that perhaps the aether doesn’t behave that way, the Quantum Magi cult demanded that the only resolve was that there couldn’t be any aether field (a fallacy in logic). The behavior of affectance is both rationally sensible and testable.
I agree. This comes down to the underlying logic that you have put into place - the chosen duality to help make sense of things.
That is all I can think of for the moment.
I dont think this thread is a little too far back at all - I think it is important for me to cover some historical ground and to analyze the thought process as it evolved. Why on earth were you disappointed at the revelation of a traffic jam? Rhetorical question implied. For me who has never known about the more ordered “spinning” envelope as it relates to RM:AO, the revelation of a traffic jam cloud turns out to be exciting.
Because I had hoped to find a fundamental form of harmony at the base of physical mass rather than a furious conflict of efforts. The actual harmony is the logic and consistent behavior, but actual particle mass forms from the subsequent chaos which then leads to a higher order (molecularization).
It is the fluid chaos of money, influence, and power that causes wealth and health distribution to be so very uneven, forming a hierarchal “particle” governing Man into his eternal misery and eventual extinction.
And since you asked about how I derived that equation for the affectance distribution of a monoparticle shown in this video:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6-_6__9ZvY[/youtube]
The equation is the resolve to the following necessary facts concerning a stable, stagnate congestion of a fluid substance.
Imagine a hollow sphere surrounding a particle, “sphere A”. There is affectance flow in and out of that surface sustaining the particle’s congestion and form. The total surface area represents an amount of affectance and that amount distributed over the surface area represents an affectance density, density-A.
Then imagine another smaller sphere concentric to A, “sphere B”. There is also a density of affectance associated with that surface area, density-B. The question is, “What is the relationship between the density upon the surface of A verses that of B?” The answer isn’t quite obvious.
One can begin by realizing that every bit of affectance that propagates directly toward or away from the center of the particle must travel equally through both spheres. And each spherical region will delay such affectance in accord with the density at that radius. And the delay of propagation is a direct measure of the affectance density, or the amount of affectance “at that spot”. It should be expected that the delay, and thus the density and amount of affectance, will be different at each radius.
Then it helps to realize that at every point throughout all stable, non-moving regions the propagation delay is equal for any and all directions. Whatever delay value there might be for propagating left to right must be exactly the same as the delay for propagating up to down. This is true simply because each point has its own density value, regardless of the direction of propagation (as long as there is no motion of the overall field region = stable region). And that means that the amount of affectance propagating in any one direction (at a stable point) is equal in all directions.
If the amount of affectance propagating in every direction is the same as every other direction for each point on a surface, then by knowing merely the amount of affectance propagating in any one direction, the amount for all directions at that one point is known.
We don’t know how much affectance is propagating directly in and out of the particle center, but we do know that it is the same amount passing through both surfaces, A and B. And that means that the sum of all of the affectance of the points on surface A must be equal to the sum of all of the affectance of the points of surface B. That is very significant.
Since we now know that the total amount of affectance is the same for each surface, it can only be the surface area that determines any difference in density. Thus the surface area difference between A and B is the density difference between A and B. And that is going to be true for every radius, simply due to the symmetry of the situation.
So now we have a relationship between the amount of affectance at any radius to any other radius;
$$Spherical ; Surface ; Area = 4\pi r^2$$
$$Ad_r = Ad_0 * \frac{1}{(1+4\pi r^2)}$$
And then since we know that the very center of a particle has the maximum density possible = 1, we have:
$$Ad_0 = 1$$
$$Ad_r = \frac{1}{(1+4\pi r^2)}$$
Then additionally, we can know the total affectance content of the form merely by integrating over all surfaces:
$$\int {\frac{1}{(1+4\pi r^2)}}dr \quad = \quad \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{4} ≈ 0.443113$$
And that yields a graph;
Then if we add the concern of the particle not being the only existence, but rather a particle within an ambient affectance field, we get;
$$Ad_r = \frac{1-Ab}{(1+4\pi r^2)}$$
More philosophically, this represents a necessary power (and/or wealth) distribution in a 3D region for free flow, fluid power or wealth that is being delayed based upon complexity of decision making.
I know. And the relativity theory (1905/1916) I was talking about was something that made the aether theory redundant according to the mainstream physicists after the test during the total solar eclipse on 29th May 1919, although this test was criticized.