I asked the question because I did not think that his statement was true. His preferred answer affectance is something he came up with all by
himself as far as I know. So obviously he thinks he is right and nothing will convince him otherwise. But I favour the more accepted answer my
self. Not I hasten to add because it is popular but because it is true
Again, that isn’t an explanation. It is, at best, a description.
What is this “three dimensional Universe” made out of, how is it structurally and logically put together, and most importantly, why does it exist?
I agree that time is a measure of change. Distance is not in itself a change, though, but rather a difference. Difference is a prerequisite condition for change to take place, but is not the same as change itself.
The difference between ionic and covalent bonding is the net result charge. A covalent bond ends up with no net charge whereas an ionic bond ends up with an electron still unmatched and thus still negatively charged.
That isn’t how it works either.
Inertia emerges due to the maximum degree of changing taking place such that any attempt to add more change (such as moving the mass) is impossible. There is a “Maximum Change Rate”, CMR. A CMR occurs at a point in space when too many ultra minuscule EMR pulses are affecting that same point. The point can be logically required to change at a greater than infinite rate in order to keep up. Since that is impossible, any new changing that comes along just has to wait. That waiting is what causes the slower acceleration - “inertia”.
All of this is also related to why it is that light travels at that particular speed, “c” and no faster.
Magnetism isn’t a “force” either, although far more complex than merely gravitational migration.
Transfer is not the same as share.
A covalent bond, also called a molecular bond, is a chemical bond that involves the sharing of electron pairs between atoms. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond
Anyway, it doesn’t matter.
I never meant to imply they were clinging by static charge. I figured the book is picked up by friction between the fingers and cover. On a microscopic scale, they look like 2 mountains plugging into each other.
Yes, but it’s possible. Your theory relied on it not being possible. That was my point.
How does it create a boundary layer? How does a resistive force make mass?
How does a boundary layer represent a force by virtue of its existence?
Why is it resisting being moved like that?
Magnetism produces the force that results in the friction
Right but it doesn’t matter because the force is still there and would accelerate it if there were no offsetting forces.
That presupposes there is a force acting to destroy the boundary layer. Where do those forces come from?
Why not radius^4?
Oh I think I see what you’re saying. Gravity should weaken when it acts on an object? So that enough object should completely exhaust the force of gravity? Hmm… I never thought about that. What you may be missing is that the objects themselves also have gravity.
Well, I can’t explain what I can’t explain.
This video explains it very well:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztc6QPNUqls[/youtube]
That’s what I figured… mass is simply energy.
Watch in the video for the part about pulling the quarks apart and the energy that goes into doing that actually creates more quarks.
So mass, or matter, it seems, is simply the result of lots of localized energy. How the transformation takes places, I know not. But it doesn’t matter… matter is energy. Matter gets its mass by virtue of being localized energy moving through an energy field and thereby encountering resistance to movement to varying degrees dependent upon how much energy is localized into a packet at a given moment. The photon, for instance, has the lowest amount of energy and not enough leftover to transform into matter, so it is able to move at the maximum possible speed across the energy field. When more energy is added as if to make the photon go faster, it actually slows down because the energy is transformed into matter. So the speed of light is the tipping point where more energy added will slow the particle. And by “particle” I mean energy packet or possibly “wave front” where the leading edge of the wave encounters the most resistance to motion allowing the back edge to “squish” the wave into a packet and produce the illusion of a particle. That is similar to the video I posted about “slowing down light” where when the front of the light hits the BEC, it slows and the whole wave squishes until it leaves the medium and returns to its previous configuration.
Gravity, then, could be the decay of mass back into energy. Somehow, by some mechanism, that energy results in an attractive force. I’ll have to ponder the situation further.
Wait, so you can say objects are falling even though they’re escaping their fall at an equal rate, but you can’t say objects are accelerating when their movement is being “stopped” by an opposite force? The video I posted suggests the “stopped” object is moving, and accelerating, equally in both directions.
Good catch!
Except that what acceleration means is a change in velocity. If something is not changing in velocity then it makes no sense to say that it is accelerating. But yes I agree that there is a balance of forces, if something accelerates (or moves at a constant velocity) toward something else, bumps into that something else, and then stops there, and we say that the original energy which caused the acceleration or velocity is still present, then we can say with Newton that the equal and opposite force of the thing it bumped into perfectly equals the force of energy behind the object’s original motion.
With gravity and “falling”, yes I understand this is not the best way to conceptualize it. I think this comes down to semantics. The Earth is pulling on a satellite, and the satellite has its own energy of motion (either just as inertia, or as inertia plus its own energy supply (an engine, for instance)). going perpendicular to the Earth, therefore orbit is achieved. Eventually if no new energy of motion is added to the satellite it will spiral down into the Earth, or escape the Earth’s orbit. But you can set the initial energy motion of the satellite in such a way that the difference between the pull downward of gravity of Earth and the perpendicular force of motion of the satellite around the earth is so small that it will take a long time for that difference to grow and eventually pull the satellite in (conversely, if the difference is slightly on the side of the satellite’s motion, then over time the satellite will pull away from the Earth).
So yeah, I agree with you that to say the satellite is “falling around the Earth” is not semantically correct since the satellite is not actually getting any closer to the Earth. But I say “falling around the Earth” simply because this was the best way I saw it described while I was researching into how gravity actually works in the space around the Earth; it seems to conceptualize it well, even though you are right that “falling” would semantically imply that the distance between the thing that is falling and the thing it is falling toward is getting smaller over time.
Yes, it does not matter to this discussion.
Yes I agree. This is what allows anything to “grip” anything else, the fact that the geometry created by the outer electrons on both objects possesses these “mountains and valleys” which can sync up with one another. Some objects produce more or less coefficient of friction between them, which is why it is easier or harder to grip certain things. This is also why different objects feel different to us; touching a soft cloth feels different than touching smooth glass, and this difference is due to the difference in the geometries produced by the outer edge electrons of the thing you are touching. You “feel” that difference quite literally and immediately as texture.
My idea did not rely on the idea that fusion is not possible. As I said, most matter does not interact like fusion or fission. And even in fusion and fission, as I said, you do not have a case where two objects are merging into/through one another, because the objects are actually breaking down and being reconstituted into something different.
Thanks for asking these very good questions. It has forced me to make some good conceptual leaps.
E=mc^2, and m=E/c^2. What is “c”? It is a number that we assign to the speed of light, what we consider to be the upper velocity limit. The actual number of c is irrelevant, since it depends on the unit of time that we pick. But “c” itself is a very important concept. I want to look at it in the following way:
What is a wave of energy? A wave does not really exist as a discrete thing, as an object, because the wave is simply an emergent property of a velocity of an energy-vector due to the waving (oscillating up and down, or back and forth) of an underlying material. For a wave to exist you always need something under the wave that is “waving”, that is what a wave means. The wave is just an expression of the fact that underlying matter is oscillating in a pattern, and this oscillation is sequential and allows energy to move along a vector (the energy it took to make that underlying matter oscillate like that is passing along the vector from one oscillating point to another, to another, to another…)
What we call c is basically the “fastest possible wave”, which we associate with electromagnetic radiation or “light”. But an electromagnetic wave will travel slower if the underlying oscillating material is oscillating more than if it were oscillating less, assuming the same input of initial energy; this is the wavelength, and a wave of X energy with larger wavelength will travel more slowly than will a wave of X energy with a shorter wavelength**. This is because the underlying material needs to move more distance with each oscillation, causing it to take more time for the wave to pass by each point.
So c is basically the minimum distance that anything can oscillate and still propagate a wave. This is also associated to Planck time, which is considered the minimum unit of time, and this does relate to c and to the Planck constant, as Planck time = squareroot[ (h/2pi) *G / c^5 ]. h is the Planck constant, G is the gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light. Notice there is also pi in there. Since pi is the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter, what I think this is describing is a kind of dimensional shift: you take the Planck constant (related to the smallest possible distance, as the minimum possible action/energy change unit) and divide it into 2pi, multiply that by G, and then divide all that into c^5, then you square root that whole thing. Square root is just the inverse of squared, so you are basically finding what is the value that, when squared (taken in terms of itself, dimensionally expanded (like how you can take a line-segment, square it, and this literally builds a square out of it, adding a dimension)), gives the smallest unit of time (rate of change).
I think we should think of c not as a speed, but as a distance. c is the minimum possible distance that the underlying material that is ‘waving’ (allowing waves to exist at all) can oscillate back and forth. This is why c is used in e=mc^2, or rather in m=E/c^2, because you take a quantity of energy (the force of the wave) and divide it into this minimum possible oscillation of the underlying material/medium, but you square that minimum possible oscillation value because, again, this builds an extra dimension from the vector. The lower limit is taken in terms of itself, “squared”, to produce a tiny geometric region; then you divide the total energy of the wave into that region, and you get the ‘mass’.
So mass is basically a quantity of energy trapped in a given geometric region, partitioned out within all the domains or little boxes of that region. The mass will depend entirely on how much energy is being stored and partitioned up within that unchanging geometric region. You asked how does resistive force make mass? This is simply because it takes more energy now to move that mass, and “mass” is simply a quantity of energy stored in a given geometric space; the energy is no longer vector-propagating as waving the underlying oscillating material, so now you have “saturated” that underlying material in that region of space and caused it to no longer be able to wave like that, no longer able to propagate the original wave as a vector of energy. Because it is saturated like this, new waves that encounter that region cannot simply pass through, because the underlying material cannot oscillate as would be required for the wave to “wave through”, or cannot oscillate enough and on the same scale as before in order to do that. Thus incoming waves need to have more energy to overcome the fact that the underlying material in that area is more “frozen” or locked in place and does not simply oscillate as easily as it used to.
This requirement of additional energy needed to propagate a wave through the area is what it means to say there is a resistive force. The “particle” is simply this little locked-up region of the underlying material, and the particle only moves because this region is still able to oscillate the underlying material but in a much slower, more deliberate manner than before when it was simply a region through which waves were passing. You need additional input of energy in order to force this “locked-up” region to oscillate the underlying material thus move the particle. This is also why all particles also have ‘waves’, because for even a particle to move means that it too is “waving” the underlying material, making it oscillate sequentially which is what the moving particle really is.
To your question of “how does it create a boundary layer”, this is more difficult. For some reason, the initial energy of the wave gets stuck in that region, as m=E/c^2. It gets stuck in this way because the underlying material (“medium”) gets saturated and unable to oscillate as it was oscillating previously. So there must be an equation that describes a sufficient amount of energy of a wave incoming into a region of space, which wave is operating at the level of the Planck distance (c, as the minimum distance which the underlying material can oscillate at all) and also which exceeds the ability of that underlying material to actually oscillate like that. Therefore particles (“mass”) form because of an incoming wave that is both waving at the c scale (minimum possible wavelength) but also contains so much energy (frequency) that it forces the underlying material to “lock up” and slow down that wave, stopping it entirely due to the fact that the underlying material can no longer oscillate at the c scale. It now oscillates at a much higher order of magnitude, derivative scale, namely it is simply a very slowed down kinetic wave or “meta wave”. This is what we call particles. Mass is basically a measure of however much additional energy is needed to move that particle.
Because per the above that I explained, it takes more energy to move the particle (to force it to oscillate the underlying material/medium which has become partly “locked up”). It may also be the case that the underlying material is now only able to oscillate in a meta-scale, namely you have multiple points of the underlying material now oscillating together as if they were one point only, because they are saturated at the level of those points themselves and can no longer wave (oscillate) on the level of the point itself. The boundary of the particle represents a force and an intrinsic boundary division between inner and outer simply because incoming force (new waves of energy) are no longer able to simply propagate through that space, therefore are forced around that space or back where they came from, unless the incoming wave has enough energy to overcome the locked-up underlying material and force it to meta-wave, thus moving the particle.
Simply because it takes more force to move it.
Ok, I can go with that. I agree that friction is the only reason why anything can “grip” anything else; if there were no coefficient of friction between two things then any force pushing them together would simply cause them to slide around each other, and no grip would be possible.
Yes, as I also explained to Sauwelios in the previous post of mine.
Reality is always a collection of forces, energy, impacting everything else. There are electromagnetic (and kinetic) waves impacting everything all the time, even out in supposedly empty space. Anything that exists will be continuously bombarded by outside forces. These outside forces are not “acting to destroy the boundary layer”, rather it is simply a case of if the outside force is sufficient in energy to overcome the force of the barrier itself (the limit of force required to cause the particle to move, or in the extreme case, causing the particle to break apart). If it is not sufficient in energy to cause that, then the outside force slides around or bounces back from the barrier (from the particle).
As far as I can tell, squared just means “in terms of itself”, and represents a dimensional shift upward as I mentioned above. Taking ^4 would mean going up three dimensions. Maybe that happens too, but it seems sufficient to produce mass from energy to merely shift upward one dimension. You can build a geometric region out of a line segment by simply squaring the line segment, and this is why the area is defined as “1”, because there is one segment in the new geometric region.
If you have a line segment of length 1, and square it, then you now have a square with side lengths 1 and area of 1, but the number 1 that designates the area is of an entirely different category of number than are the numbers 1 that designate the length of the sides. The numbers that are used to designate area have nothing to do with the original numbers that designate the length of the sides; the side lengths are designated by numbers indicating distance of the segment, while the area is designated by numbers indicating how many quadrants or regions the new geometric region has been partitioned into.
Yes, the planets also pull on the sun, but the original point I made remains that the sun does not “use up” its available supply of gravitational force by distributing that limited supply of force amongst the various planets and other bodies in the solar system. If you want to calculate the force of gravity between the sun and the earth you do not need to factor in the presence of Jupiter. Granted that the presence of Jupiter does change the gravitational field of the solar system and may have an impact on the motions of the earth and sun, but the actual strength of the gravity between the sun and earth depends only on the sum of the masses of the sun and the earth, divided by the square of the distance between them.
My point was just that gravity is not a force in the traditional sense, because it is not “used up”. Gravity does not weaken over time (except in so far as the sun is burning through its mass slowly over time, thus losing mass over time, but that is something different), and it does not weaken its pull on objects already there when more new objects come into the same gravitational field.
True. Me neither. But that is why I try my best not to use mystifying terms or concepts that do not really explain anything or themselves cannot be clearly explained.
**Clarified this in the next post, and will examine this relationship between wave speed and energy more later. Supposedly electromagnetic radiation always travels at the same speed, “in vacuum”, and if that is true then amplitude is locked in so far as the underlying medium is as tightly bound as possible and can only ‘wave’ a given distance up and down (or back and forth).
To clarify about the speed of the wave and the underlying material oscillating, it is probably the case that the underlying material/medium is “as tightly bound as possible” therefore causing the wave to propagate at the maximum speed, which means that electromagnetic radiation is “waving” at the scale of the most tightly bound underlying material (Planck lengths). This would mean that the underlying material is moving a minimum distance needed to propagate the wave, and the wavelength or rather amplitude of the wave itself is related proportionally to the ‘wavelength’ (distance of movement forward and then back again) of the underlying material that is oscillating.
A larger wavelength would indicate that the underlying material is in a state of lesser tension. Frequency and wavelength are opposite ways of understanding the same thing, in terms of amplitude and wavelength being correlated as well (larger wavelength means smaller frequency if amplitude does not change, and vice versa – wavelength is the distance “up and down”, frequency is the number of “crests and valleys” of the wave passing through a given point in a given unit of time, amplitude is the maximum and minimum point of the crest and valleys). More amplitude would mean more energy in the wave, assuming that amplitude can actually vary like that; if it does not vary, then more frequency would mean more energy in the wave, such as I believe is the case with photons.
Is it me or is that a revolutionary insight, about c being a distance?
Its genius.
Ive been working that problem since I can remember. I got close now and then but never saw this step.
Good thing this site registers the date of you posting it. No wannabe Nobel laureate can claim this find.
i don’t agree with classical philosophy not even modern philosophy as it is too rigid, situational awareness is the most important, to improvise and be flexible in the world view.
EU has a humanitarian crisis, with all the refugees, both from african nations and from middle east, the former should be solved at the root of the problem, where the birth rates are out of control in many nations and even if they’re within the ‘norm’ the population are so vast that it will end in disaster as people will migrate to western countries to seek jobs.
We should pose birth restrictions and reduce the population.
Thats not a subject for this thread.
And its not going to happen.
Ethics is not a “should” in that way. That is morality.
Ethics is the stuff of ethos, which means nature, disposition.
Nature, disposition is first. If the disposition is so inclined and consistent enough for it, it can employ logic.
Talking about genepools is the most productive here.
Talking about situationalism can be done here.
We have to remember that velocity is a vector and the velocity of an object in orbit in the relevant(radial) direction is zero. For all intents and purposes, the object is stationary in the radial direction the same as a book on a table. The rest of what you said is cool. I just wanted to point out that velocity has vector components.
Oh, I thought it did and that was why I mentioned fusion. Oh well. Carry on.
Yes, I am paying attention 
I agree so far.
I’m confused here. If the wave is the oscillation, then why does the underlying material oscillate independently from the wave?
Confused again. I know that a wave with higher frequency has more energy because of your last statement, but your 1st statement says both waves have the same energy (X). As far as I know, all EM waves travel at the same speed, but the higher frequency means more movement per distance and hence more energy is required to maintain that frequency. In other words, the wave won’t slow, but the frequency will. That’s how visible light turns into infrared when meeting an object. Visible light has a higher F and infrared has a lower F, but both travel at c.
I’ve considered Planck units too, but then I read they aren’t rules really. An answer here says, “Planck length is more numerology than physics at this point” physics.stackexchange.com/quest … r-is-it-th
It could be. I previously speculated that c is the speed a particle can travel because adding more energy will actually slow it down because the extra energy turns to matter. In other words, c is the tipping point where photons start turning to mass as more energy is added. I think that is similar to what you’re saying about the minimum wavelength (another tipping point where if we try to go smaller, it turns to mass).
I agree.
I had to read it a few times, but it seems plausible. Mass is saturated energy that can no longer travel as the wave it once was. That does make some sense.
Do you mean particle as a tangible thing or a packet of energy?
How about this: The leading edge of the wave encounters all of the resistance to motion leaving the trailing edge to “squish” up against the front of the wave. All that compression produces a boundary layer.
Well, the reason I ask is that while sitting around a campfire, a guy told me the heat varied by r^4. I don’t know if he was full of bull or not. I could be remembering wrong as well… maybe it was r^3. Anyway, just thought I’d ask.
Ok, if you account for both the sun and the earth, then why would you expect to see a loss of force of gravity from the sun? Earlier you said gravity can’t be a force because, for example, the presence of the earth does not reduce the force by the sun on jupiter. In other words the force by the sun seems to be in unlimited supply, which should indicate that it’s not a real force, but something else. To that I said something like “Yeah but the earth donates the gravity that is takes from the sun, netting no reduction from the sun.”
I wouldn’t pop the champagne cork just yet
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo[/youtube]
The speed of light is determined by something that has nothing to do with light: causality.
Yes, I made those videos. You don’t understand what which “cloud” is??
As far as infinite divisibility, just as there is always a number greater than any number given, there is also always a number lesser than any non-zero decimal. And such numbers represent quantities, of whatever. What is hard to comprehend about that?
Matter “wells up” from a great, great deal of chaotic ultra-minuscule EMR (aka “affectance”). Such is found in the center of stars and black holes. The affectance density must be very high such as expressed in this video:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6-_6__9ZvY[/youtube]
There was no “Big Bang”. Every bit of supposed evidence for it has been shot down. It was a religiously injected notion.
I authored Affectance Ontology because it can be totally, logically proven (it is not a speculation) and it explains literally every scientifically noted observation, even those that scientists preach as unexplainable (even the famed “Young’s Double-Slit” experiment).
If you can follow logic without prejudice, you will become a believer too.
That was a very good video, although I think that he got his cart before his horse on a couple of things. I loved that he properly accredited Henry Lorentz. And what he refers to as “speed of causality” is exactly identical to what I refer to as the “speed of affect”. I used “affect” rather than “cause” simply because existence can be defined in terms of “that which affects”. The term “that which causes” is a little more dubious. It is merely a language and philosophy issue, but the bottom line is that they are identical.
I can explain (again) exactly why it is that light travels at that particular speed and never faster. And yes it is related to causality, but more obviously related to affect. The speed is the fall out of two infinitely fast occurrences yielding a necessarily finite result. And he was also correct about the fact that the universe could not exist at all if affect propagated at an infinite speed. But note that he did not know WHY causality/affect/EMR cannot travel at infinite speed, but rather only that it must travel at a finite speed in order for the universe to exist.
You are right about that. The speed of propagation c, is independent of the “frequency” (“equivalent frequency” - there is no actual oscillation going on) as long as there are no mass particles involved (aka “total vacuum”).
And “c” is NOT a “distance”.
Time is the measure of relative changing between two changing events.
Distance is the measure of the average amount of ambient changing going on in a region (affectance density).
Those are the reasons why relativity works as it does.
And since you mentioned it, “Dark Matter” is merely vast regions of higher affectance density (that green cloudy stuff in the videos), slowing light, creating more gravitational migration (no mass particles required), and skewing measurements of distance (leading to erroneous notions of how far and how fast things are moving). Their use of it in astrophysics is just (even though they seem to be oblivious as to what it is).
Exactly. I have been preaching that for years.
Actually it is the other way around. It is at c that mass becomes light and finally losses all of its “rest mass”. The issue is merely one of whether the entity is formed of affects traveling entirely in a single direction (a “photon”) or whether the entity is formed of a chaos of affects traveling in random directions. All affects (on that level of the physics) travel at exact the same speed (considering their environment), but a mass is formed when the affects traverse each other, causing delays in their propagation. Without those delays, there could be no mass at all. And if you removed all transverse affectance from any mass particle (by magically encouraging it to out run transverse interference) what is left of what was a mass particle is only whatever affects were traveling in the same direction. And that is what a light photon is.
Impressive! The green cloud.
Numbers are a construct. They don’t exist. You can’t use something humans conjured to prove something in reality.
I watched all of them on your channel. What is the basis for the postulation of “ultra-miniscule EMR”? How do you know what is in the center of stars and black holes?
Really? I thought all the evidence was supporting the big bang model.
Well lay it on me!
Yes, I saw that in your video about affecting and thought that things could exist regardless if they affect anything. I don’t see why affectance is necessary to define existence. I mean, for all intents and purposes, you are right, but still.
What? Fallout of infinitely fast occurrences of what? And how does a fallout yield a finite result? And why is it c?
It would be the same point of view that light has now. That’s what I said several pages ago. From the POV of light, there is no universe. To create a universe, slow down the speed of causality then space and time will result. If you want to call it affectance, that’s fine because cause and affect are pretty close.
Yeah, the speed of causality or affectance would depend on how fast states can change. Nothing to do with distance. I think the distance theory was brought up due to the minimum wavelength idea. That would be the highest possible frequency and highest energy state before energy starts turning to mass. My tipping point idea. I’m pretty confident that c just happens to be the point were more energy added will go to creating mass and slow the particle/packet of energy. It seems there are many ways to arrive at the same tipping point whether it be by higgs field or lorenz or whatever. c just happens to be the point that more energy will make mass.
I thought dark matter was black holes. sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/ … lack-holes
So it’s settled then?
You really think so? Maybe it goes both ways. I don’t see why not. The important thing is the tipping point. That’s the answer to the question of why light travels the speed it does… because if it goes slower or tries to go faster, it will have mass and not be light.
Chaos is not random. But on objects that small, randomness is certain.
I like that idea. But where do the affects come from?
I guess that seems right. I just need to learn more about this affectance idea.
Hahaha,
Funny.
The idea that causality has nothing to do with light. That there is anything that causality’s nothing to do with.
Carry on.
Cleary, all science is about describing the conditions of causality.
This is why I work wit logic, so as to see if I can produce these conditions from irreducible logical axioms.