Universe and Time

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).

Do you accept the dualism of light (which means that light is both a wave and a particle) ?

Light is not a particle except in the sense that because all of the affectance within a photon is going in the same direction, the affectance stays together. But a photon cannot replenish itself so as to remain a stable size and shape as particles do.

A photon is merely a small amount of EMR that is typically found in specific sizes due to how a photon gets generated and detected, the changing of an electron orbit. Given a horrendous amount of distance, the photon would very gradually spread and become undetectable. Photons can combine their affect and thus can give the impression of being a particle at a specific point when in fact there was merely a higher affectance at that point as multiple remnants of prior photons overlap. That is what causes the famous “Double-Slit Interference pattern”.

In that experiment, particles can be used in place of light and achieve similar results. Because the results are similar, people can be convinced that there is little difference between a particle and a photon. But in reality, the particles display a similar interference pattern for an entirely different reason.

So, no. The “wave-particle dualism” is merely more superstitious disguise of ignorance and misdirection.

Why do the affects that were headed in the direction of motion remain within the particle of noise longer than others when the center of the noise shifts?

Because the center of the particle is moving in the same direction as the affects that were headed in that direction.

If an affect, A, is traveling from left to the right through points
x1y2, x2y2, x3y2, x4y2,…
And the particle, P, is moving through points
x1y2, x2y2, x3y2, x4y2,…
While during same time, another affect, B, is traveling through points
x2y1, x2y2, x2y3, x2y4,…
Although the affect A is moving faster than the particle P, they occupy more of the same locations during the same times. Whereas point x2y2 is the only point shared between affect B and particle P.

Or you could think of it as two planes passing through a moving cloud. One plane, A, is flying in the same direction as the cloud while the other, B, is flying transverse to the cloud’s direction. Plane A passing through the cloud and headed in the same direction as the cloud spends more time in the cloud than plane B passing through the cloud transverse to the motion of the cloud. If the cloud was slowing the planes, the plane headed in the same direction as the cloud would take longer to get to its destination.

And light passing through a glass ball will be delayed longer if the light is traveling in the same direction as the ball.

Affects are merely waves of electromagnetic radiation?

Well, it is more like an EMR wave is made of affectance waves. There is a huge difference in scale between basic RM:AO and common physics. RM:AO deals with waves that range from (but not including) absolute zero up to perhaps 1000 times smaller than an electron. Whereas the smallest physics gamma wave is much larger than an electron.

In RM:AO there is no such thing as an affectance wave that isn’t made of smaller affectance waves. And a typical EMR wave is a huge collection of affectance waves that just happens to have similar direction and polarity because of how such waves are produced. It is similar to comparing the sizes of an ocean wave (representing a gamma physics wave) to a single water molecule in RM:AO (representing an affectance “pulse” or wavelet).

To physics, an electron is so small as to be merely a tiny spec with almost no mass or size. But in RM:AO, that same electron is filled with millions of affectance wavelets or pulses with very notable mass and size. And an EMR gamma wave is much larger than that electron and filled with billions more affectance waves. An EMR wave is a huge wave of infinitesimal affectance waves.

According to RM:AO existence is that which has affect. But what is an „affect“ according to RM:AO? And what is an „affectance“ according to RM:AO?

Thus the nominative “affect” refers to the changing itself or the influencing itself (note: “Effect” refers to the end result of an Affect).

Affectance ≡ an amount of subtle affects upon affects or influences upon influences.

You’ve just given me a very general and thus a well known definition, but I wanted a physical definition, James.

So I guess there is no physical definition for “affect” and “affectance” according to RM:AO.