That is not always the case because many of their words have become ambiguous, such as when they say that a photon has zero mass", they now only mean that it has zero “rest mass” (because it never rests). They declared that the photon could have no mass at all because Relativity implies that if it had any mass at all and traveled at the speed of light, that mass would become infinite. Eventually they discovered that a photon does have mass. So they distinguished the momentum for of mass from the gravity form of mass by calling the latter, “rest mass” (else their Relativity theory would be exposed as wrong).
So in RM:AO, when I say “mass”, I am referring to the amount or degree of affectance. A photon is merely a bunch of affectance that is all traveling in the same direction. Because it is all traveling in the same direction, it stays together (mostly). When all of the affectance within a bunch or cluster is traveling the same direction, it cannot form a stable particle because it is out running any accumulating or gathering of affectance, from surrounding space, that would otherwise take place such as to form a particle, an actual neutrino. If you could magically stop a photon from moving without it dissipating, it would form a neutrino particle because the surrounding affectance would accumulate into it, making it a cluster of the more common random noisy affectance (internally moving in all directions).
Also when they use the word “particle”, they now often refer to something that is in no sense a particle, such as a “gluon”. Quarks are “quazi-particles” and formed merely from a puffed up neutrino with a confused charge field allowing for the formation of both neutral and charged polyparticles (one particle made of many). A quark is not a stable particle in its own right. It cannot exist in free space and would reduce to being merely a neutrino if it didn’t entirely dissipate.
The point is that they have altered their words’ meanings to fit their theory’s needs such that at times, their words do not mean what they mean at other times, nor what they originally meant.
RM:AO is all about affects and since all of their words are referring to some kind of affect, everything they talk about relates back to affectance. The issue is merely which form and degree of affect; flowing, random, clustered, dense, or whatever. It is all the same “affectance” merely in varied forms and concentrations. They gave names to some of the forms, but then altered the names they gave, so their words are not exactly coherent any more (much like Hinduism).
I was agreeing by giving further detail so as to reduce any possible confusion.
Space is the field of relatively lower concentration of affectance, a cloud so then that you cannot see it. Within that cloud of affectance, any concentration becomes noticeable as either a “mass” or a “radiation” depending on how fast it is moving within the surrounding cloud. If all things became un-concentrated, there would be nothing but space made of randomly flowing affectance, unnoticeable, seemingly empty.
An “object” (any and every object) is merely a higher concentration of the affectance of space.
There are only two forms of physical existence;
1) Potential (the situation that brings change, involving locations of concentrations: “PtA”)
2) Changing (the potential altering itself into new concentrations and locations: “Affectance”)
Science and religious metaphysics have given very many names to the variety of forms of those. Many of the names have become conflated, confused, ambiguous, and incoherent. All that I can do is try to iron out some of what they were referring to with the names they used. When questioning any of the meanings of their words and names, one is merely asking “To what form of affectance is this word referring?”
In Christianity, those exact same two are named;
- God, the father of creation
- Creation
But in using Christian words, would you have ever guessed what they were actually talking about? Christian followers guess it wrongly every day and in a variety of ways (as do followers in all of the religions, including secular science).
A black-hole is the “Real God’s” actual Hell, not merely “hellish” or “like hell”, but the actual physically real Hell, a spot of maximally concentrated chaos, absolutely no discernible order, within the universe of affectance. But in Jewish wording, it would be the “Abyss” wherein all order and form are totally randomized.
Unfortunately Christianity (and others) associated “Heaven” with absolute peace and order, which can only exist conceptually. Physically Heaven can only be partially emulated by relative peace. A far more permanent Heaven requires a high degree of harmonic motion of the separate small concentrations of noisy chaos (“particles”, “thoughts”, “groups”, whatever). The harmonic motion defends the spot of heaven from chaotic interference via its momentum to form a large spot of anentropy within which people can live: SAM.
The religions and science are talking about the same things, merely applying words differently to different forms and degrees. They are ALL talking about Potential and Affectance in their varied forms.
Affectance has nothing to do with “attraction” except as an aberrant appearance. Locations of concentrated affectance tend to migrate toward each other, unless in their own average potential they are both either above or below the ambient. concentrations of similar potential affectance will migrate away from each other for the exact same reason that religions and governments spread into different lands. They each have similar potential, but each has a different center of concentration, a different focus of concern.
I DO allow their use and I am making those comparisons. That is why I am trying to clarify to what degree they apply and when they can be properly used.