My apologies if I seemed condescending. It was your use of “carrier” that made me wonder where your mind was. So I laid out the language substrata so we could see where we each were.
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.
Yeah. I don’t understand that usage (and probably not relevant).
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.
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.
Actually I am hoping that I am making some sense. 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.
