Universe and Time

A “multiverse” is not a good idea for you, is it?

A “Multiverse” is a social and psychological concept, not a physical concept except to solipsists. At any one time, there are groups of people who are thinking in different terms than others, yet dealing with the same reality. So it is said that they are in “parallel universes” wherein they each have their formulas (laws of how things work), leaders, and similar programs to manage their “world of influence”. But one cannot think in terms of the other, so each seems invisible to the other.

For example, the Catholics control a different map of “national” boundaries more related to cultural boundaries. They have their own hierarchy of authority. Yet the same people are being managed as the Secularists with their map of influence. Hierarchies of influence overlap and since most of them are secretive, they can’t clearly see each other = “multiverse” or “parallel universes”.

Noise plays an important role in RM:AO. In accordance with current physics there is no noise outside, at the utmost a quiet noise, of an body atmosphere. Do you mean a quiet / low sound with the word “noise”?

I am merely referring to random EMR spikes, “electromagnetic noise” or “Affectance noise”, not specifically “sound noise”.

My question was directed more to the WORD “noise”. I understand it also as a reasonably loud sound / noise. But since English is not my first language, I’m not sure. whether you meant it that way. Noise can’t be loud in almost empty spaces of the universe because wil there are hardly any transfer agent.

Well, in English, the word “noise” merely refers to meaningless random sounds, not especially loud. For loud noise, we say, “Loud Noise”. And the Affectance equivalent would be bright white light or even plasma.

I thought so. But I was not sure. Therefore my question.

Yep.

The “particle motion” means that the “particle” moves or relocates because the center of the clump of noise has shifted toward the more dense affectance field, if the ambient affectance noise had been denser on one side of a particle than the opposite.

So you use the word “density” instead of the word “mass” or the word “gravity” because you are saying that the density moves and attracts, although the physicists have been saying for some centuries that also in the case of density the gravity is the cause of moving and attracting, not the density itself, although the density is the most important factor of mass and thus gravity.

Thus density is defined as mass divided by volume:
[list][list][list][list][list][list][list] density = mass / volume[/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u]

  • thus:
    [list][list][list][list][list][list][list] .[/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u]

Do you go even as far as saying that the density has more to do with the electromagnetic field, the affectance field, than with the gravitation and its field?
That would be strange.

You seem to be missing the point, so let me start over.

In strictly RM:AO terms;
1) Given any small portion of space, we know that it is filled with nothing but infinitesimal pulses of randomly propagating affect, a “field of affectance”.

2) If the density of the pulses gets too high, a prolonged traffic jam occurs as the pulses encounter each other. The concentration of affects at the center of the traffic jam becomes extremely highly dense and crowded. It grows to a maximum density possible. And the density or concentration of the randomly propagating affects gradually decreases with the distance from that center. That very small region immediately surrounding that center is easily visible and is referred to as “a particle”. The visible concentration is “the particle of matter”.

3) The surrounding less dense field is not visible and extends far from the particle and gets less dense, less concentrated, the further away from the particle.

4) If two such concentrations of affects are in close proximity, both with lesser concentrated fields surrounding them, the two centers will begin to migrate toward each other because the concentration/density is greater between the two particles than other surrounding areas.

5) The migration occurs because the traffic is heavier between the two traffic jams and that causes the random propagating to be slower between the particles than other regions, thus inside the small region of each particle there is more prolongation/delaying occurring in the small area nearer the other particle. Because the particle affectance concentration is already at a maximum level, the particles cannot simply grow larger. Instead they shift or migrate the maximum concentration/density, maintaining the same size, merely closer to each other.

Now in terms of common physics;
1) Given any small portion of space, we know that it is filled with pulses of randomly propagating “EMR energy and gravity”.

2) There might also be a “particle of mass” floating in that space.

3) A “gravitational field” is emitted by that particle.

4) If there are two such particles in close proximity, they will be attracted toward each other.

5) The two particles gravitate toward each other because they each attract the other by gravitational force.

So to translate;
Affectance field = EMR energy and gravity.

Highly concentrated affectance field = mass particle.

Low concentrated affectance field = gravity field (can be called “mass field”).

Affectance particle migration due to a gradient in the affectance field = particle mass attraction due to gravitational force.

Affectance field with higher average PtA than the ambient field has = positive electrostatic field.

Affectance field with lower average PtA than the ambient field has = negative electrostatic field.

Affectance density = energy density.

The density of affectance has little to do with the electrostatic field. The electromagnetic field is a field of changing electrostatic field. The “density” involved merely refers to how much changing of the electrostatic field is happening within a volume. There is far, far more changing of the subtle EMR within a strong gravity field, but the magnitude of the changing is infinitesimal and the average electrostatic field is close to zero.

An electromagnetic field might have greater energy density than a gravitational field. It just depends what you are measuring. The energy density is the affectance density. So close to the center of a particle, where the affectance density is near maximum possible, the gravitational effect/field is extremely high, but there is no detectable EMR.

In common physics, the smallest electromagnetic wave is a huge macroscopic wave of affectance pulses. In RM:AO the affectance field itself is made of the same thing as that macroscopic EMR wave, merely infinitesimal sizes and randomized.

Perhaps this picture will help:

It is showing the relation of affectance potential to affectance density. The ambient determines positive from negative potential and the frequency (or change rate) determines the density (“mass field”, “gravitation field”, and/or “energy density”).

[size=120]But how would you define a “particle” then?[/size]

You wrote in that picture (for example): “Affectance Potential” and “Affectance is the Changing of the Potential to Affect”. Thus the “Affectance Potential” must be the “Changing-of-the-Potential-to-Affect-Potential”. :-k

In English, if you want to say, “The potential associated with the Affectance”, you can simply say, “Affectance Potential”. Granted that it is a little ambiguous because you might be implying A) a potential that the affectance exercises on other things, or B) a potential that is an inside/inherent part of the affectance. So you can’t always get pedantic in English.

Since we are talking about the affectance that is EVERYTHING, not merely an isolated portion relative to something else, one can deduce that we are speaking of (B).

Particle ≡ a small self-sustaining cluster of affectance.
A Sub-atomic Particle ≡ a particle within or smaller than an atom.
Monoparticle ≡ a particle with a single center of affectance concentration (electron, positron, neutrino).
Polyparticle ≡ a particle with multiple centers of affectance concentration (proton, neutron, atomic nucleus).

But a cluster may consist of several particles.

If the cluster is so small as to seem to be a single entity, it can be called a “particle of a perceived greater entity”. An atom can be called a “particle” until you look too close at it. A spec of dirt can be called a “particle of dirt”. The word “particle” is a bit abstract unless being used within a specific context.

In the case of sub-atomic physics, a particle is an isolated maximum concentration of infinitesimal EMR noise, a “cluster of affectance”.

You call such a “cluster” also a “clump”, don’t you?

Yes; “cluster”, “clump”, “traffic jam”, “crowd in a field”, and “particle” are all words that I use to refer to the same basic concept.

The noise (the inequality of the density of the noise) causes the particle motion. But why is it noise? It must be something electromagnetic, of course, but why noise?

“Noise” merely means that it is lacking pattern, randomized on an infinitesimal level. Since there is nothing to dictate a particular pattern for affectance, it travels freely enough to never form a pattern except by aberrant coincidence. The densities in different regions sway up and down like the waves in an ocean. And just like those waves, what they are calling CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) is merely the natural resonance of affectance out in space, “naturally occurring waves” that are detectable. A degree of harmonic resonance cannot be avoid. With a great deal of trouble, it can be minimized and thus reduce the double-slit experiment pattern, but it can never be reduced to zero (and has nothing at all to do with the Bogus Band Theory).