Universe and Time

Because it makes the most sense from what I know about reality. I think reality is just the same line banging around the universe.

You see… anytime the line bisects, it causes both a point and more mass, so it’s bigger than the line. I think this line moves WAY faster than the speed of light, and draws our entire reality moment by moment… the entire universe each moment.

There should be a finite speed for this line. I haven’t figured out how to calculate it yet though.

Basically, another way to look at this, is that the point is moving so fast, it can cross the entire universe in a grid faster than it tail decays, creating mass. So it’s kind of a misnomer to call it a line. It’s really just one particle moving so sfast that it keeps hitting itself in motion, given the constraints of it’s velocity.

How can you experience that time exists? How can you experience that thee ist patterned motion? It is only possible if you can distinguish, thus if you can realise the change.

So the concept that comes very close to the concept “time” is the concept “change”.

The are interconnected… change can only be discerned with patterned motion, which is what time is.

The moved clocks go faster than the unmoved clocks.

[size=120]Oh, look at this[/size]:

Source: Francis Sedgemore, Wednesday 13 May 2009 at 10:48 UTC; sedgemore.com/2009/05/einste … -lecturer/

Dingle-SRT Review

Although it is hard to follow (despite being simple math), Dingle pointed out the most basic flaw in SRT. What I find interesting is that GRT actually disproves SRT … yet no one notices.

That is - by the way - not a coincidence !

That “unknown effect” could be your “affect(ance)”, James !

That is exactly why I designed RM. RM allowed the design of AO, Affectance Ontology. And RM:AO answered every question physics ever had.

If the speed of light were adjusted so that it matched closely its region, although not completely, then the experiments would indcate an observer-dependent speed of light. And by the way: that would explain the so-called “stopped clock paradox” as well. The light that incidents in the area of each observer is changed so that it adapts to the speed of this area. If that were true, the stopped clock paradox would not exisst anymore.

Fresnel, Stokes, and Lorentz all had Aether theories. Those were the closest theories to actual reality. And due to the Michelson-Morley experiment began thinking in terms of “aether drag”. Their error was only their lack of understanding of exact what Aether really must be. And thus they presumed many thing about aether and tried to prove or disprove it based upon false presumptions. They didn’t understand that matter and all of the “forces” had to be in fact made of that aether substance rather than merely being mediated by it. And their “aether drag” theory, better defined as “ambient affectance”, resolves the issue raised by the Stopped Clock Paradox.

The beauty of Affectance is that there is no option but for it to exist. It is not a “perhaps it is like this or that” kind of theory. There is a total lack of alternatives. Affectance absolutely must exist if anything exists at all and regardless of what else might exist. Aether was proposed as a possible medium for other things to travel through and by which things could affect other things. That made if different than Newton’s proposition that magically mass reached out, without medium, and affected distant things. Einstein didn’t like that thought, nor did most of the world.

The Fresnel, Stokes, and Lorentz crew were the most accurate and on target of all of them (or of those noted). Einstein and Minkowski proposed a brand new ontological basis for science involving a change in what the definition of space and time actually meant (change the definition to match the presumed observation). An alteration in fundamental definition can allow for a new ontology to be exactly correct while the old id still exactly correct. It is like changing languages, yet saying the same thing.

The problem is that Relativity turned out t be logically incoherent, but useful for specific circumstances. It isn’t that it was ever exactly true, but rather it was easier to get right. And since the earlier aether theory didn’t have aether defined quite properly, the aether theory and experiments could not compete against the media’s preferred authority.

Affectance Ontology completely resolves the entire issue from beginning to end, philosophically and scientifically. It has no match, although Aether theory comes close. The one “field” of Affectance automatically gives rise to all of the laws of physics and formation of matter and energy and their aberrant properties. RM:AO gives foundation to all existence. In RM:AO nothing is presumed. And because of that, as long as its logic has been properly verified, RM:AO will always be 100% true without exception or need to cheat or play mind games such as “bending space” or “dilating time”.

Do you feel like a “public enemy”, “mainstream enemy”?

In the Land of Lies, any truth is “the enemy”. Those who thrive on diseases, die by cures.

Very well said, James.

James, in your thread “Forces or Farces” you are asking whether “forces” are “farces” or not, and I think we should not speak of “forces” but of “interactions”. And if we do that, it will soon become obvious that gravity is not the “queen of the universe” but merely one of the natural interactions.

I partially agree. But the truth is more that gravity is not even an interaction between two masses, but rather an interaction between a mass and its own immediate ambient surroundings, not the other mass-particle. The behavior of each mass-particle is a reflection of its situation, its surroundings. It is the surroundings, the ambient, that causes the concentrations of mass, the particles, to migrate toward each other. That migration is observed and recorded by Science as “gravitational force”, even though no forcing (no pulling or pushing) ever occurred.

So you are saying that the interaction between the Earth and the Moon is not the interaction between their masses but the “interaction between a mass and its own immediate ambient surroundings”. Is it the mass of the Earth, or the mass of the Moon, or a mass “somewhere between them” (but where?), or even another mass? And if it is only the surrounding which is it? Is it more the surrounding of the Earth or of the Moon?

Yes.

There is only one existing substance and it has many forms which we name independently as though there was no relation. The substance that makes up “mass” is the exact same substance that makes up “empty” space - chaotic, ultra minuscule EMR, Affectance. When affectance is ultra thin, low in density, we call it “empty space”. When affectance is ultra concentrated, high density, we call it “mass”.

The Earth is surrounded by a very, very low concentration of its own mass substance (affectance). And so is the Moon. If you affect that substance, either “object” (the highly concentrated affectance globs) will move accordingly. Neither object is conscious of the other, only reacting to its immediate surroundings (what human’s should do more of).

But also realize this;

Does the mass, does the weight of bodies play no role in RM:AO?