Universe and Time

James, I am refering to your thread called “RM: Affectance Ontology Fundamentals”:

Have you get this 33 “fundamentals” from (a) your computer experiments, or (b) other experiments, or (c) no experiments?

The first 8 are issues of definitional logic. From those, I created a program in a small PC from which I could witness the rest of them as consequences, although the PC was too small to have flows of electrons circling such as to get a clear picture of the magnetics effects toward the end of that list.

My first display mechanism was merely the numerical readout from an Excel program showing a single plane slice through a cubic metaspace and looked something like this;

Then I cleaned it up a bit so that I could more clearly see the “clumps” that were forming and added a tracker program (the circles) to follow the formed particles;

Then cleaned it up more where I could watch interaction between particles yielding a series of frames. I only took snapshots of the following three frames out of about 35. The upper blue curve is a graph of the distance between the identical changed-particles as the one on the right was thrown toward the other (center), in a 3D space.

The motion within the metaspace was actually 3D, so all you see in those snapshots is the degree of affectance associated with the one plane cutting through the center of the space. The center particle ended up moving slightly forward and down while the upper right particle (thrown at the center particle) swerved across the top of the center particle and veered upward and back. Those shots weren’t supposed to be proof of anything in themselves. I had watched very many sequences. I wasn’t concerned at that time about public display, but rather seeing if the original logic actually lead to our known physical laws, which they did.

Later I got inspired to create a program for people to play with the whole thing and prove it all for themselves, but the display turned out to be an issue. I started to develop a program showing the affectance, not as numbers but as small colored specs, “afflates” (usually 100,000 or so “Affectance Oblates”, “afflates” for short).

I built the following program as a platform (showing over 1,000,000 “afflates”) and was thinking that I could build onto it in order to get a public tool where people could play with the variable, see the programming, and prove it all as well as many other things for themselves (rather than everyone having to take someone else’s word).

But that turned out to be just too much for a small PC unless you are a serious expert programmer with the right support files (which I didn’t have). So I tried for a while to see if there was a way to get the program to make video files where you could see the actual video motion, but without the video support files, the whole thing became just way, way to convoluted and slow to be of any realistic good.

The following are a few shots as I was playing with different video methods (displaying the cloud of affectance within the chamber);






And I made this little clip just as a morphed series of snapshots (not having the video support files necessary) showing a particle forming from a cloud by itself. It forms and stabilizing pretty quickly;

But I finally gave up on that effort simply because it was getting way to impractical to serve its purpose. And more recently finally figured out a way to make that same program better, but it is still a monumental task and I still don’t have the proper computer support. So I have just been making short animation clips for sake of explanation a few things online. They are strictly for explanation purposes. None of them show the reality of it as it could be seen.

The fundamental program isn’t that complicated. It just takes a whole lot of memory and processing time and then seriously needs a good video display mechanism so that the relevant results can be easily identified and seen without having to analyze data.

I feel like Einstein having to invent and prove the oscilloscope merely to explain his relativity theory.

Video! When was it?

But your theory is different from his theory.

???
When was what? I was attempting that project maybe 8 months ago or so. But I never got to produce the video because of insufficient tools. I found myself going through ridiculous extremes to do the simplest of tasks involved (like having to create my own video encoder).

If I had been asked for a unified field theory during the 1980’s, I would guess that it would have taken maybe 2 months to come up with the answer. But when it came to verification and demonstration, although I might have put together some software for that, I would have very probably just designed a different kind of computer processor such that the essential functions were a part of the hardware (my specialty at the time). That would have taken maybe a few weeks and produced a cube of metaspace running at least 1000 times faster. And that would allow for much greater convenience in experimenting with varied field strengths and particle behaviors. And I might have even gone the more serious route and used analog processing in critical areas, giving it probably another 1000 times faster response time (when it comes to the fundamentals involved in reality, digital is horrendously slow).

But either way, the issue would still have been one of producing visual confirmation and communication for sake of others. Producing a video of the various experiments would still have been a major issue because it isn’t an issue of making a film that portrays or simulates the events, but rather a video of an emulation taking place in real time. And a video file would have been even harder to produce back then and would have slowed the processing down tremendously (tempting me to do even that part in firmware).

Interestingly, even though everything thinks in terms of how computing has advanced so much, in many ways, it has receded. That same project would probably take me years to develop and a great deal more money. Today, I feel pretty much like I am having to figure out how to build a space shuttle out of used car parts. The tools and resources don’t match the need.

That’s the point. When you are revolutionizing a field, the old tools don’t fit the new needs. RM:AO isn’t another evolutionary step in science. It is a revolutionary restart of science. And when the theory must be proven, it often takes inventing the new tools. And that can easily take much longer and perhaps totally different talents than the theory is all about. RM:AO has very little to do with creating video encoders and advanced processors. But those things are needed as tools merely to demonstrate the much simpler theory and the greatly complex association between the theory and all of the questions that people have concerning anything new.

The appropriate computer were missing “during the 1980’s” and the matching videos were missing “8 months ago or so”. Is that right?

Creating Video encoders and advanced processors are indeed needed as tools “to demonstrate the much simpler theory and the greatly complex association between the theory and all of the questions that people have concerning anything new”.

So RM:AO is a metaphysical (particulary ontological) theory with physical basics but also with a never produced “video because of insufficient tools”. Is that right?

If so, how can you or we overcome that dilemma?

The point was that in 1979-80, I designed the fastest, low power, low cost 32 bit processor in the world, using techniques that were unheard of at that time. Later I found those same ideas being put in high speed 32 and 64 bit micro-processors (not that they stole them from me because I’m sure they were bright enough to think of such things themselves). I was an intelligence designer and throwing together a new type of processor was nothing to me, just about could do it in my sleep. So when I needed something to be fast, I would just design it into the hardware, making it a 1000 times faster than using software for the same task. And I had the contacts and resources at that time to build just about anything. The issue was that no one had asked me anything about a unified field theory for physics, so like most younger guys, when I wasn’t drifting around, I was getting tossed around. The shadow government was taking over in my area so businesses were popping up and failing rather regularly.

Then in the mid to late 80’s, I could see how to cause a processor system to become just as emotional as any person. And after thinking about that for a while, it dawned on me that the whole trend to make computers so smart, was a really bad idea. The smarter we made machines, the dumber we made people. So by the early 90’s I was switching from computer intelligence over to human intelligence. And then retired around 1995.

It wasn’t until around 2004 or so that I thought about the fundamental properties of physical existence. Now and then I would put a little more thought into it and just a few years ago, I decided to play with trying to get a computer to emulate the fundamental properties. That wasn’t easy to do because digital computers just don’t get along with analog reality and science and math were designed around a different understanding anyway. But eventually I figured a way to use a small single-bit processor and my little PC to generate those first pics above.

Then I developed things a little more and realized that I really had a true unified field theory and even more, a “Grand Unified Theory” because the fundamental principles of reality actually apply to literally all things, without exception as long as it is done right. That is when I developed Rational Metaphysics and also Affectance Ontology and became a “metaphysicist”.

But where I am at now is without any resources or energy to do what I used to do and passing the understanding on to someone else is more important than having a computer model for it. But even to do that, requires communication and video does that with this kind of thing a lot better than words. And right now, I don’t have the proper video support files with which to generate good videos showing the details that need to be seen in order to show all of the connections between RM:AO and contemporary physics.

To me, RM:AO is beyond being merely a theory, because not only do I understand the logic, but have seen the computer demonstration for very many complicated results and also have allowed people to try to come up with any possible flaw in the logic and no one has. There is really nothing left to guess about because it is all about necessary logic, not derived from presumption or observation, but pure logic.

So online, I can talk about it, but until someone can see the program and results for themselves, they can’t know without question how real it is. Even with a video, someone can fake it. I am really not interested in anyone merely taking my word for anything (despite the accusations). I don’t even talk to those kind of people. I am interested in people who have enough confidence in themselves and can follow the logic, scrutinizing every detail. I am not the “Cult Leader” that people like to accuse me of being. Although RM really is a revolution in science and thus would actually lead to a new culture of thinking (“cult” is just short for “culture”). If people don’t change to it, the androids will. And I know that they will (I know how they think). They are designed to be smarter than people even though currently programmed with merely contemporary science ideas. The androids will learn and leave people far behind really quickly.

So the most important thing at this point is to relay to someone of a logical mind and serious self-confidence, every detail concerning the fundamental understanding and its significance. Videos would help with that a lot, but they are not the objective in themselves. The point is to get RM:AO understood very thoroughly. It IS the future science. As Neo said in The Matrix film, “I don’t know the future. I did not come here to tell you how this is all going to end. I came here to tell you how it is going to begin.” None of the world’s problems right now are actually necessary. Not one. Not terrorism, economics, disease, radiation, not even the problem of having no problems.

The videos are only needed for communication. Advanced processors are not so much needed, but a larger system is. To emulate an orbiting electron, from only the fundamentals, requires a huge amount of memory. Once that demonstration is made, much smaller models can be made to replace already known clustered activities within the metaspace (greatly reducing the required memory). At that point, larger molecules can be formed that necessarily behave exactly as any real molecule. And I don’t even have to know how the molecule is supposed to behave. The system would show me. After that, all of Chemistry is just an issue of pushing a few buttons. No chemical labs. No billion dollar particle colliders. Thousands of dollars replace billions of dollars.

Got any suggestions? :sunglasses:

Not at the moment, James. I will soon read more of your theory.

It is also a question whether my theory fits with your theory.

James, would you say that your theory is more holistic or more reducionistic?

Emmm… no.

Actually, I have a little trouble discerning what people mean when they use those terms.

And my “theory” is more than merely “a theory”. RM:AO is first an ontology that leaves no option but to be true (feel free to take that as a challenge). But more than that, it happens to necessarily include ALL fields of science, religion, governance, psychology, economics, or whatever. If it is real, RM:AO covers it. In that sense, it can be said to be “holy” (from being “whole” and flawless). But is that really what they mean when they say, “holistic”?

Yes, it deals with “the whole” as well as any portion, so technically, it is “holistic”. But it also explains the inner details of the greater existence, so in that sense, it is “reductionistic”.

I just say that RM:AO is rationally incontrovertible.

…those really are great videos there, aren’t they. :sunglasses:

That’s what I thought. But my question was not a “YES/NO”-question, but a “WHETHER”-question. :slight_smile:

I would describe your theory or ontology in a similar way.

No, an electron does not has the consciousness, because it acts and acts only and does not feel the consequesces of its action. Furtermore, it does not have any option other than to act in a certain way given any particular circumstances.

It lacks discreetness, adaptation to circumstances, choosing to will.
Wiilingness is that differes live-matter from non-live matter.

with love.
sanjay

It depends on the philosophy, especially the metaphysics and its ontology, or the theory whether wiilingness differs live-matter from non-live matter or not. For example: according to Schopenhauer the will is Kant’s “Ding an sich” (“thing as such”, “thing in itself”).

Can you give an example of “live-matter” (also known a “orgonite”).

According to my theory, most of the “laws” of physics should not be called into question, thus some of the “laws” of physics should be called into question,

???

Your “theory” is what?
And how can one know it is an actual law, if never called into question?

!!!

Tor! - Goal!

I am watching football (soccer) at the moment (Spain vs. Chile). Are you also interested in that, James?

Back to your questions:

For example: most of the “laws” of the quantum physics had been called into question before it became apparent that much of quantum physics can not be wrong because a dental drill and a cd player really work.

The f ourfundamental forces of nature should not be generally called into question, but some of the"laws" of thermodynamics, or the theory of the “big bang” and the theory of the “inflation of the universe” shoulld be called into question because there is no absolute proof or evidence, but merely laboratory experiments, statistics, modeling, and - of course - claims for them.


Affectance and spiral-cyclicity are convertible and not contradictory.

Bodies “notice” without any awareness that they are affected.

You can call into question their ontology laws. Are they local in time and space? ARe they more like temporary habits?
In fact we know that some laws are not universal through time. A good number of constants and laws are being called into question in a similar way. The idea of laws has been a valuable heuristic and given the time span we have experienced - though it seems some changes have happened even in homo sapians lifetimes - and how limited we are locally in space. But it is a heuristic or metaphor if you will. And it seems to suffer some of the problems of analogies.

I don’t go into details of my theory, because it would require a lot of space, but some aspects of the current physical theories, especially of the cosmological theories, have to be called into question, because they seem to contradict spiral-cyclicity.

So the time arrow can also be called into question, because we really don’t know much about our universe (and perhaps other universes), the black holes, the so called “dark matter”, the so so called “dark energy”, the “big bang”, the “inflation of our universe”, and the fact whether the universe is really closed or not, which leads to another problem: the entropy of our universe, including the specific direction of its time arrow.

I’m afraid that I lost interest in public sports in the early 1980’s.

That seems certainly reasonable.

I would be interested in how the cyclic motion relates to evolution and history.

Quantum Mechanics is strictly about statistical data, having no theorizing involved. Quantum Physics is an imaginative effort to bring solipsism and magic into science. QP is a conflation of the description of reality with reality itself, the conflation of the map with the terrain. I have yet to find anything of QP to be valid. QP is the notion, not of “mind over matter”, but rather “mind IS matter”. In QP, the equation itself is the physical reality and causative force, not merely a description of it. CD players and dentist drills work for entirely different reasons.

I have discovered that the Standard Model in contemporary physics is not an entirely accurate ontology. In RM:AO, there are no actual “forces”. What appears to be forces in physics is actually merely dynamic migration. And the “strong” and “weak” forces don’t actually exist at all. They are merely aberrant effects (Charged Particle Behavior).

Yes, of course.

The theory is based on analogies. For example: Sun and technique (technology), planets and cultures, moons and economies, other bodies and art. The pre-condition I made is that the problem of the “dualism” between nature and culture can be overcome by analogies. In addition to the great “dualism” between nature and culture there are three other “dualisms”; so actually there are four “dualisms”, thus one “quadrialism” - four regions, and each region has two subregions; so I’ve got eight subregions (little “worlds”), and this eight “worlds” are: (1) physical, (2) chemical, (3) biological, (4) economical, (5) semiotical (incl. psycholgical/sociological), (6) linguistical, (7) philosophical, (8) mathematical. We can combine them: I (1 and 2), II (3 and 4), III (5 and 6), IV (7 and 8 ); or: A (1,2,3,4 or 1,2,3,8) and B (5,6,7,8 or 4,5,6,7). But the principal point is te analogy by itself, just in principle. It is very much stuff! So it is very much text too!

Which “entirely different reasons” do you mean?

If “the ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ forces don’t actually exist at all”, as you are saying, why do you then mention them in your “affectance ontology”?