This abstraction needed to be brought forward: I need to check for errors . . .
Calculating vectors - pre-conceptual!
Let Abit/s = affectance bit/s : Let N = any particular Abit in the array
With two arrays we are tracking many Abits:
Structure ForBothArrays ; using double precision(represented by the .d after each variable)
PtA(N).d
x(N).d
y(N).d
z(N).d
EndStructure
Speed is one clock cycle(theoretically equating to the speed of light in physical space) represented as a tic.
Angle is randomly preset at the first moment of populating the Abit - and updated as the “difference” between n & dn where n can be x,y or z.
Currently void of the actual rules of engagement between Abits.
Each tic, n is assigned the value of dn - during the process of switching the primary(active) array over.
In preparation for mental disinfection - Here are some snippets from an earlier post . . .
Realize that in current Newtonian physics, a “field” is a “force field”, a topography of the mythical force vectors. RM:AO has no such force vectors, thus no “force fields”. RM:AO has affectance density fields, much like the humidity density of clouds or of people in a city. There is no “action at a distance” in AO (Einstein would have loved AO).
So Affectance waves propagate through an affectance field of different density than the affectance wave (again, like a sound wave in water). Affectance waves are always compression and often PtA propagating waves, “puffs”, or coalesced aggregates. The Newtonian physics equivalents are; electromagnetic waves, photons, and mass particles. A Maxwellian magnetic field is merely a compressed electric field (revealed by RM:AO). An electromagnetic wave is a compressed and/or decompressed electric wave propagating through ambient space = EMR.
[list][/list:u]
The blue wave is the PtA propagation (a Maxwellian “electric voltage wave”). The pink or purple wave is the magnetic component. Note that the magnetic component increases as the PtA wave enters a higher density affectance field - a gravity field. That compression is accompanied by a retardation in propagation speed. And that effect is the cause for Einstein’s “spacetime” relativity because both time and distance measures are compressed as the any wave enters a higher density affectance field. Those measure return to their normal by existing the higher density.
The “field” is the point by point variation in the potential of the overall situation (hence; “electric potential” and “Potential-to-Affect”). It is legitimate to talk about a “PtA field” in that sense, just not a “force field”. And keep in mind that a fixed magnet’s “magnetic field” is not the same as Maxwell’s magnetic component of EMR, although related.
Energy
Yes but … What precisely, is “energy”? Decades ago, they spoke of “potential energy” and “kinetic energy”. Those were actually identical to “Potential-to-Affect, PtA” and “Affectance” with merely one distinction: “Energy” was described merely as “the ability to do work” … but what constitutes “work”? RM:AO precisely describes “affect” in simple unambiguous terms (“to cause a change”). They had it right. They just didn’t relate it to the philosophical concern of “what is existence” other than to merely claim that “existence is energy as far as science can detect”. RM:AO is very specific and exact concerning the nature of existence as well as how and why all of the “laws” of physics and science in general exist. So now people get crazy with nonsense speculations of what existence might be - “perhaps those scientists just got it wrong”. There is no room for RM:AO to be wrong because the foundation is totally complete, comprehensive, “whole” and very revealing of why things are the way they are.
Yes. The electric field is the field of potential. The magnetic field is the compression of the electric field (the degree of point-by-point compression), and the electromagnetic field is the propagating combination. And realize, again, that a permanent magnet’s “magnetic field” is a different story than merely the "point-by-point compression of the electric field. A permanent magnet’s magnetic field is more related to the electromagnetic field, but not the same.
RM:AO is actually pretty simple, but once the mind is infected with current complex physics imagery, it can be difficult to see how simple the real picture is.
Not really. Haven’t you ever had an experience of what you might call a perfect moment?
You left out existential. You also left out experiential. Human beings do experience perfect moments. Is “reality” to be solely based on logic? We are not simply Minds. We are also Hearts and Spirits.
Nothing unrealistic about it. Is “real” only to be defined by the physical?
You seem to believe in a soul? How real is that and yet there are many who see it as real.
When one experiences what they define as that perfect moment, is it a hallucination? Is it a delusion?
No one has said that the perfect moment is eternal or lasting. But for a time, it can be felt as perfect
~~ “though nothing gold can stay.” (Frost).
As human beings, are we the perfect equation?
ab·so·lute
ˈabsəˌlo͞ot,ˌabsəˈlo͞ot/Submit
adjective
1.
not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
“absolute secrecy”
synonyms: complete, total, utter, out-and-out, outright, entire, perfect, pure, decided; More
2.
viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
“absolute moral standards”
synonyms: universal, fixed, independent, nonrelative, nonvariable, absolutist
“absolute moral standards”
noun
1.
PHILOSOPHY
a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.
“good and evil are presented as absolutes”
It wouldn’t be wrong if it was your perspective that it was wrong.
But I was not speaking of art here, encode_decode. I was speaking of how qualia is sensed and felt in the human psyche. You call it soul.
Is that what I said? If my memory hasn’t failed me, I think that I asked “Where does it go”? I mean, the heat, the energy?
“When circumstances permit” - For example?
It is quite wonderful, isn’t it?
My words were depending on the premises that what we are being told is true.
But I was basically speaking about how one can come to understand another’s way of thinking and perspectives.
Can you point out to me how what I said is different than what you said?
I was merely saying that i was not being rhetorical.
What was the question? lol
I appreciate your apology but it is not necessary.
?
What?! How does that even make sense? If we don’t ask questions, how would we ever learn if there are answers to be found? It’s only through asking the questions, then seeking the answers, investigating, examining, ad continuum that an answer may come. May not come ~~ YET, but how can we know if we do not utter the words?
I’m not sure that I understand this. It doesn’t make sense to me but then again many things do not make sense to me. Have you ever looked for your keys?
But perhaps you are using the word answer in a different way. Maybe what you are saying is that there is the probability that those keys are there unless you dropped them outside.
But before you find them, you haven’t found them. So the answer is not there unless you remember exactly where you put them after you have asked that question.
I think that this was about the question of determinism/pre-determination which I really do not choose to see. Why, because it takes away my free will, my choices though I do realize that ultimately will is not completely free nor are our choices. They are pre-determined from our past and those which effect/affect us (James, are you listening here) :-" But we are capable of transcending them or pushing through them.
But I can see that much of the Universe itself would appear to be determined - not so random…when pondering its workings.
I don’t like believing things, you know. If i can’t know something, why would I choose to believe it. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t imagine it, ponder it, wonder about it, be amazed by it…ad continuum.
I don’t like to be an absolutist. Today’s facts are tomorrow’s errors.
True. True. True.
Hmmm…can there be such a thing as informed opinion?
I love the phrases lending possibility and potential truth.
What do those two phrases have in common? They are not written in absolute stone.
Now let us tackle the piece up to the “perfect equation” - I still think when you use the words “perfect moments” you are being less absolute than I.
But that is to say that some moments are less complete and therefore not absolute when comparing to your perfect moment. You are talking about a subjective experience and not the objective causal chain which is no less complete than any other moment when you consider that a moment is loosely defined as a period of time or and exact point in time - which is it - with no definition we are introducing ambiguity which becomes the cause for debate.
Your idea of “perfect moments” is more poetic and less absolute, more romantic and less realistic, more emotional and less logical - - -
Hmm . . . So now lets add in existential as I have already covered the experiential. Every moment is perfect - why is that? Reality can be solely based on logic - the logic would have to include variability associated with any arbitrary causal chain - in turn a moment as a snapshot of the universe remains absolute to believe otherwise is to say that things just disappear into nowhere - and where is this place nowhere exactly? You are assuming that my idea of the soul is not physical and why is it that you make that assumption? In this thread we use the term spirit rather than soul - actually we do use both but you will find that my idea of soul and the threads idea of soul are two different things.
As a reference for the both of us as spirit and soul pertain to this thread:
There is nothing unrealistic about any concept either, when you voice it or write it out - does every concept work though?
We have not even defined the concept of moment to be anything other than your idea that is in competition to my idea - it is because of the lack of definition that we are experiencing this rational mismatching. We could say that this is a case of corrupt cybernetics in that the feedback is corrupt on both sides of the equation(being you and I) therefore an inequality exists. This inequality is nonetheless in a state of existence, no? I have stated before that non-existence is but a shallow concept - one of those concepts that does not work. The inequality’s existence however is performing some sort of work in the circular causal chain between you and I - we just need to iron out the wrinkles so to speak to subjectively perceive it as your perfect moment(ubiquitous in my OPINION). The five words you quote of Frost seem to be in harmony with what I am saying - yet you seem to feel they are in harmony with what you are saying . . . Hmm . . . a glass of ambiguity anyone?
I have an idea what Thomas Nagel would say . . . :-"
I applaud you . . . you are providing my mind with stimulating and challenging thought . . . Bring it on . . .
I look forward to our next encounter on this momentary dilemma . . . Level Up . . .
You yourself demonstrated something to me earlier on using an ideal/convenience as an example referring to absolute vacuum.
OK . . . I also used an ideal when I provided examples using infinite homogeneity as a convenience - I sensed in you some resistance for my using this convenience.
Perhaps I am imagining things. I may have neglected using the quotes.
I use this method to fully grasp elements of a system, that is to say, things that can not be conveniently further broken down.
It is my own determination that concerning points I have been able to visualize the usage of cP as follows:
The primitive cubic system (cP) consists of one lattice point on each corner of the cube. Each atom at a lattice point is then shared equally between eight adjacent cubes, and the unit cell therefore contains in total one atom - 1⁄8 × 8.
The usage of cP as the basic lattice is but a convenience to explore filling space.
Intuitively this presents a problem concerning angles and this is why moving to random 3D angle setup overcomes the limitations of the cP. With any lattice there are voids that cannot be explained and this is unacceptable to the philosopher. Points then are not convenient when designing an emulator or any other analytical device.
Also given that points have no minimum size in space, it can be said that points do not exist - at least physically.
This also intuits a problem with angles - there are an infinite amount of angles - with an emulator we are limited to the maximum precision allowed by the compiler - we will use double precision but this is simply not precise enough. There must be a mechanism that is a ratio of PtA to neighboring PtA that allows for stickiness between Abits.
I am certain that rules of engagement must encompass the dilemmas mentioned in this post. Speed is not a problem as previously suggested, however position is.
Yes, you got it right. ALL physicality is made of affectance (ultra-minuscule EMR pulses and waves). When many of the pulses are propagating together in the same direction, they form a “photon” passing through the more chaotic ambient affectance, much like a sound pulse traveling through water.
And yes, if the ambient affectance density increases (more noise/energy within a given amount of space), the propagating bundle is slowed by the increase in interference. If the ambient density decreases, the interference to the propagation decreases and the bundle speeds up again.
Realize that affects are ALWAYS propagating at the maximum possible. It is only the ambient density that alters how fast that is.
An afflate is not an actual thing. It is merely a minuscule portion of the affectance field. Every afflate is made of affectance noise. There are no fundamental bits. Even every pulse is made of smaller pulses that are made of yet smaller pulses ad infinitum.
That is why I sometimes refer to afflates as “little fuzz balls” of affectance. They are not discrete entities, merely chosen small portions for sake of study and emulation.
I agree.
Yes. A point is not a physical entity. A point is merely a location - a relative reference from some other location.
Oh, double precision is plenty precise enough for the goal. There can never be a truly perfect emulation of actual physicality because it would take more than an infinity of memory, processing, and precision. Fortunately afflates get around that problem by producing a “pseudo-field” that sufficiently emulates an actual affectance field such that one can watch all of the properties of physicality emerge on the screen.
I’m not sure what you mean by “stickiness” between PtA points. First PtA is not a thing or entity, but rather a measure of the situation at a point. The surrounding flow of affectance forms peaks and valleys of potential to affect, PtA. The flowing of the affectance is those potentials actualizing by affecting each other, keeping the entire field very chaotic, much like the surface of the ocean during a storm.
Is affectance simply another word for energy but if not what is the difference? And why cannot there be any fundamental bits? I ask this because
in the Standard Model Of Particle Physics there is no infinite regress. There are particles composed of smaller particles but the electron and the
quark are not known to be composed of anything else. But infinite regress logically reduces to zero. Which would mean that the Universe would
literally be composed of nothing. Something that is physically impossible
It is merely an issue of proper, philosophically suited, definition. Energy and causality can be thought of as the same thing, but they are not realized to be the same. To affect is to cause a change, any change, and “energy” refers to accomplishing “work”, but what kind of work?. Those are actually the same thing, but not realized to be the same until you go through the affectance perspective and discover that to affect is to cause and propagate energy and the propagation of energy is the propagation of affect. The theory that all physical existence IS energy is not immediately acceptable thus would remain forever as merely a preached theory rather than a logically necessary fact.
In addition, existence can be defined as “all that has affect”. And that definition has innate meaning that can be rationally proven. Although it can be said that existence is “all that has energy”, it is not immediately obvious at all to be a fact nor provable except through using “affect” as an initial point and discovering that in deed, there must be affect and thus energy within any and all physical existence.
First the “Standard Model” is a list of fundamental superstitions wherein half of the ontological components have never been proven to exist at all (not to mention that it is an incomplete ontology). In RM:AO, you learn that the Standard Model forces are entirely superstitions. NONE of those “forces” actually exist. And that can actually be proven.
The effort to quantize the universe has failed. It failed for a variety of reasons even beyond the philosophical requirement that there be a reason for anything that is true. If there is going to be a smallest bit of existence, there must be a logical reason for it to exist and be that particular size and shape. And what shape could that possibly be? The only shape with which one can truly fill space is a tiny cube. Since we are talking about all existence, how is one going to traverse equally in all directions while actually only stepping from one cube to another? At angles, the distance from one cube center to the next changes. And why would the universe be made of cubes? Who thought that one up?
It is far more rational to accept that there simply is no smallest size or shape. Why would there be? What is there to force reality into any specific shape? And using that idea, it turns out that all physical properties known to Man can be emulated merely by emulating the affectance field with a variety of naturally occurring densities. All actual particles that can form, do form through the free emulation (meaning that the field is not programmed to form particles. It just does automatically and forms each type. And each formed particle just happens to behave exactly as science has noted physical particles to behave even though the emulated particles were not programmed to behave in any manner nor even to exist in the first place).
No, it doesn’t. Infinite regression is an endless regression. There is no zero with an endless regression, else that would be an end. Logic (the consistency of thought and language) is what forbids it.
Energy is defined as the ability to perform work but over time entropy increases until there is no more energy available. So physical
existence will not always equate to energy. The Universe is an isolated system so will not be able to borrow energy from else where
The Standard Model is very incomplete accounting for simply four per cent of the observable Universe. The rest comprises dark energy
and dark matter which are entirely mysterious phenomenon. The SM also cannot account for quantum gravity. None of that however is
a reason to ditch it. For it will be improved upon as new knowledge is discovered over time. As that is how science actually progresses
Do you really think that the four fundamental forces do not exist and that you can prove it too as that is a remarkable claim to make
If electromagnetism did not exist then there would be no visible light so nothing could be seen anywhere at all
Without it also photosynthesis could not occur and the entire food chain would cease to exist as a consequence
If the strong nuclear force did not exist there would have been no reason to split the atom in order to harness its incredible energy
If gravity did not exist then nothing on Earth would ever fall to the ground. Planets would not orbit stars. Light would not be bent in the presence of such
massive objects. Galaxies would not orbit the supermassive black hole at their centre. As there would be no force of attraction anywhere in the Universe
The behavior as if there was a “force” occurs. But that behavior is not due to any actual force. There are no actual forces. A force is a superstitious ontological element equivalent to a dumb god, fairy, or spirit being accredited for observable events. In reality, concentrations migrate, just like traffic jams on the highway.
And speaking of such, realize something: in the case of dark matter, they propose that this dark matter is responsible to a greate, great deal of gravitational effect. Yet dark matter has no material substance to account for such huge gravitational effect. Through RM:AO it becomes obvious that what they are discovering is gravity fields exist without particle masses. In fact, a mass particle is merely an extremely high concentration of the gravity field (which is a gradient affectance field). The field is what is causing gravitational migration of particle masses, not some magical force that reaches out and grabs other masses. Forces are literally superstitions used to cover gaps in knowledge (almost the entirety of QP is such). Masses behave as if there was a force there, so it is an understandable first mistake. But it was never true. Newton was wrong in more ways than merely relativity.
Also realize that they cannot explain WHY any of their magical forces or particles exist. When asked, they simply reply, “it is fundamental. They just do exist”. On the other hand, RM:AO explains exactly WHY every kind of particle and behavior exists, how it arises, and upon what it depends. RM:AO extends beyond concurrent science without ever having to disagree with ANY actual observation from science. The science theories are just guesses that make calculations come a little closer than what they had before. But their ontological make up has never, even once, been consistent and comprehensive (James Maxwell came closest). Relativity simply does not work in certain cases. Quantum Physics, as silly as it is, doesn’t apply to many issues at all. And they can’t get the two of them to work together. The same cannot be said concerning RM:AO. RM:AO is a complete, unified ontology accounting for ALL physical behavior, without exception.
Energy is recycled. It’s a closed system so energy cannot be lost. Life is the universe’s way of reducing entropy. All matter is energy and there is really no such thing as matter, but rather matter is condensed energy endowed with the concept of mass through a universal energy field.
What’s the difference if force is force or force by simple migrations? All matter is energy so why doesn’t it make more sense to say force is energy rather than saying force is matter forcing itself along or migrating or whatever?
I’m having trouble with infinite divisibility and that is a major hangup I have to understanding your theory. I have zero evidence infinity exists and have a few reasons to suggest that infinity cannot exist. I think the concept of infinite divisibility is essential to your theory because, without that, you’re left having to explain what the fundamental particles are. So, we need to tackle infinity before moving on.
Well, you didn’t take FC up on his bet, so I haven’t gone into the detailed lecture mode. But a migration is a somewhat self-motivated action (actually more compliant with FC’s self-valuing). A force is a mysterious thing that reaches out and grabs things. There is nothing reaching out and grabbing things. As dark matter is demonstrating, masses don’t even have to be present for gravitational effect to take place. From where would the magical force be stemming? Forces are like fairies and hobgoblins - merely an excuse to explain away the observation, aka “superstition”. I can go into the precise details if you really want. But first:
Okay, tell me why you have trouble with infinite divisibility of length … ?
afflated
[uh-fley-tid]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
adjective
1.
having inspiration; inspired.
As things go, it would seem to me to be an actual thing, James.
I would consider inspiration or having been inspired to be some kind of actual part of existence when it is experienced. Does it have to be a physical thing?
That being said, it can become quite the physical and emotional thing. I know that you have been inspired, James.
If you are speaking about how inspiration or being inspired can come to us, rise up perhaps in bits and pieces, not felt totally at one time, but flows into existence smoothly and slowly, though it can be felt totally at one time - then maybe I can understand what you are saying.
Isn’t a miniscule portion of Something still something? Does a slice of the pie cease to be Something simply because it has been cut or is just a part of the whole?
But at least to me even a small beam of inspiration coming to us as qualia is still an actual thing - and what a thing at that.
[/list:u]
