I meant “affect” as the typical physical usage of the word, to cause a change, to affect something. In this case here it refers to particles exchanging virtual photons and the momentum of those photons “affects” (changes, impacts, influences) the particle toward which the momentum of the virtual photon is directed. This exchange of momentum is what causes magnetic attraction and repulsion, for example.
I’m not saying anything at all about “affectance ontology” or whatever such nonsense.
Actually, that turns out to be the opposite of the truth. Light always follows the most resistant path.
But the rest of the post, forgiving the use of relativity ontology was accurate.
Actually you exactly quoted Affectance Ontology except for the use of the term “virtual photons”, which really just means “a small amount” (of affectance). I refer to “afflates” (Affectance Oblates) to mean the same thing.
That is your own bullshit. No one has ever said anything about affectance being someone’s “instructions”. 
Affectance is exactly how Wyld described it:
How does light follow the path ofmost resistance if it travels in low density affectance?
Light travels in any affectance density. But if the field is more dense on one side of the little puff, that puff will veer into the more dense region. Note that when light enters water or glass at an angle, it sharply bends into the more dense material. And that goes for the effect of gravity as well. Light turns toward the gravity source, the mass.
no it didn’t it just got evaded ~ as always. now I grow weary so I am going with demonstrable observations proving spooky action at distance. Einstein didn’t realise that being relative meant that all particles are connected for some bizarre reason.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Other types of experiments[edit]
In a 2012 experiment, “delayed-choice entanglement swapping” was used to decide whether two particles were entangled or not after they had already been measured.[35]
In a 2013 experiment, entanglement swapping has been used to create entanglement between photons that never coexisted in time, thus demonstrating that “the nonlocality of quantum mechanics, as manifested by entanglement, does not apply only to particles with spacelike separation, but also to particles with timelike [i.e., temporal] separation”.[36] What this means is that two particles can be entangled even if they are distanced from each other in time. Two entangled particles will thus show the property of entanglement even if they are measured in two different times.
In three independent experiments it was shown that classically-communicated separable quantum states can be used to carry entangled states.[37]
In August 2014, researcher Gabriela Barreto Lemos and team were able to “take pictures” of objects using photons that have not interacted with the subjects, but were entangled with photons that did interact with such objects. Lemos, from the University of Vienna, is confident that this new quantum imaging technique could find application where low light imaging is imperative, in fields like biological or medical imaging.[38]
Scientist John Bell designed an experiment to prove quantum entanglement. It involves entangling particles, separating them, moving them off in different directions, and then measuring to see if they maintain that “spooky” connection even while physically separated.
You can watch a detailed explanation of a Bell test in the video below:
techinsider.io/quantum-entan … nt-2015-10
Based on the measurements of 245 pairs of entangled electrons, the team confirmed that each electron really was exerting “spooky action” on its entangled partner; whenever they measured one electron, the other electron across campus instantly flipped.
_
What you don’t understand and will certainly refuse to accept is that what you are quoting about has been no more than a game with your mind. There is absolutely no affect directly between entangled particles. Changing one does not change the other at all.
In QM, when you learn of the state of one, you can then “determine” the state of the other, because they are “entangled”, negative twins. But if you alter one, the other does not alter. There is no cause and effect link between the two.
In Quantum Physics, reality is merely what you know. So when you learn of the state of one particle, you “cause” the knowledge of the other’s state. They translate that as observation of one particle “causes” the state of of one to be what it is. And until the state has been either directly observed or logically determined, the state is all states at the same time (the cat is both dead and alive until observed).
If photons did not have zero mass then they could not travel at the speed of light
As nothing with mass no matter how infinitesimal that may be can travel this fast
I didn’t write that. You quoted Wyld, I think. Why did you put my name on it?
Light does have a type of mass, just not “rest mass”. It has the type associated with momentum and frequency.
Light is made of the same substance as mass particles, although in the case of light, that substance is all headed in the same direction. In a mass particle, that substance is chaotically flowing in all directions.
Relativity is the simple fact that variables like mass and speed (velocity) are relative to the frame of reference from which those variables are observed. Relativity is also necessary to understand how anything is always at rest with respect to itself even when it can be said to be moving at a constant velocity, but is not at rest with respect to itself when it is accelerating. Acceleration is defined as continuous change of self-reference frame (non-constant motion) which is why acceleration can be felt within an object’s own frame of reference, felt by itself, while constant velocity motion is impossible to be felt by any object.
Photons follow the curvature of space time, so there are two ways to look at it in physics: a photon is massless (it has no rest mass, but possesses “momentum” mass [as p=mv]) but is still measured to be affected by the presence of other objects’ gravity fields, therefore a photon or any other massless particle is simply following the geodesic of the space time; or, that a photon has very tiny mass and is affected and affects gravitationally just like any other mass object. Experiments have shown light to produce gravitational effects. Either way you want to look at it confirms to observations. Momentum (non-rest mass) can also be calculated for photons using quantum mechanical formula, E=hf where E is energy, h is Planck’s constant and f is frequency.
Saying it follows the “least time” simply means that it takes the route that is most direct given the least possible energy output (energy loss). A photon would need to output some energy in order to move in a way other than how it moves naturally within the arc of the space-time geodesic, but when moving exactly according to that geodesic (curvature of the geometry of space time) it needs to exert no energy at all. Einstein explained and laid out the equations for all this.
Then you’re coming up with your own terms to describe something that physics already has terms and explanations for? Ok then.
Sorry about that I but accidentally inserted the wrong name in the quote function
First, Relativity isn’t a “fact”, but rather a particular ontology.
Well there is a new one, “one’s changing with respect to one’s own perspective”. I am pretty sure that qualified as an oxymoron.
Except that you can’t stay in the same Relativity ontology and claim that light has any mass at all. That mass would be required to be infinite.
Well, when you define your space based upon the energy, you can get away with that … but … it isn’t actually telling you anything. It’s just a word game.
Yes and no. My concept terms are provable. Theirs are not. And mine allow for much more precise and complete understanding. Theirs do not and are a bit stuck already. They can’t explain WHY anything is occurring down on the most fundamental level: “Why do particles attract? Well, they just do. Standard Model and all…”
I put things in terms of “affect” (or more broadly, “affectance”) because I define existence in terms of affect.
Existence ≡ the compendium of all that affects. That which has absolutely no affect, is non-existent.
Affectance as a substance translates into common physics terms as “Ultra-minuscule EMR” and forms a physical field, much like how an aether substance is described, although responsible for the formation of ALL physical fields and particles (provable and personally proven via emulation). Affectance Ontology is a provable “Unified Field Theory”.
No, it is a fact.
Call it whatever you want, it is a fact that one feels the change in one’s own reference frame during acceleration-- we call that inertia. You could be traveling at 1000000 kph and you won’t feel a thing provided you’re moving at constant velocity. But if you accelerate at 100000 kph^2 you’re inertia is going to kill you.
Inertia is simply the changing of a reference frame felt with respect to itself. When you push down the gas pedal you are pushed back in your seat. That is an example of a changing reference frame.
No, that is a common misconception they clear up in physics 101 courses. A photon has no rest mass, whereas you do. If you were to accelerate up to the speed of light you would take on infinite mass, whereas a photon with 0 rest mass does not. A photon has momentum mass, the fact that it is capable of imparting a tiny bit of momentum upon impact. In fact that isn’t momentum traditionally conceived, it isn’t physical Newtonian momentum of two things “smashing into” each other, but is instead a quantum field effect.
Space is defined in terms of energy. What we call space isn’t a Newtonian ether, there is no such thing; space is a “vacuum” of zero point quantum energy out of which what we call particles cohere. Even empty space has energy in it, and thus it takes energy to push back that basic quantum baseline energy (such as to form a gluon, for example).
You’re not saying anything, you’re not even critiquing the common view, all you’re doing is saying “Na Na na you’re wrong”. Wow.
Think carefully on your next post, if it’s more of this same I’m not going to bother writing a reply. (Which is probably what you want, judging by your methodology displayed so far).
Standard physics is quite demonstrable and also happens to make sense. Attraction between particles is understood and easily explained accurately with modern physics and its equations. Check out Feynman diagrams as one example.
Let me sum up your position: “Na Na you’re wrong”, and “Everything is “affecting” everything”. Cheers. You’ve combined nihilistically insane levels of denial by saying relativity and standard physics isn’t probable and can’t explain anything, with a child-like ontological postulate of “everything affects everything else, thus everything is “made of affecting””.
Cheers. Yes I’m sure you have some secret inside knowledge that the entire physics community world-wide doesn’t have… Lol
Objects don’t “take on mass” when accelerating, rather the aether in front of them begins to compress, and such a feeling appears heavy.
I don’t expect you to believe me, Wyld, but I will let you know that my theory says that objects will compress near light speed, the same as Einstein’s relativity, with one minor difference - Due to the wake in the aether, Objects behind the entity will have strong magnetic pull towards it, BUT objects in front will not.
If you can prove that high velocity objects have a gravitational field in FRONT of them you can disprove my theory. but if you prove high velocity objects have a gravity field behind them you only prove my theory.
I am waiting for Amorphos reply to Jame’s, because Amorphos was refuted again.
New to philosophy are you?
UP 1001:
What are your equations for describing the taking on of mass due to “ether” piling up? Do your equations agree with Einstein’s, or how do they differ if not?
Here’s Einstein’s relativity equation that I believe applies here:
Change = 1/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))
“Change” is simply the time or mass dilation effect due to velocity relative to the speed of light. Note this effect of dilation has been experimentally verified.
Edit: converting that equation in terms of the rest mass and relative mass of the object were talking about, gives:
Relative (new) mass = rest mass/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)), where v is velocity relative to the speed of light, and c is the speed of light.
So, where’s your equation?
Equations are for fps games, they are for making reality, not “making reality up”.
My equation would be similar to that of the effect a boat or jet ski wake produces. Gravity/magnetism would be strong in the back, but weak in the front.
Please provide clear evidence that gravitational pull at high velocities is omnilateral.
So… No equation then?
You and James are just mucking around in self-congratulating ignorance, getting off on the idea you have some kind of insight that modern physicists don’t have. I’m not saying your idea of “wake” is inaccurate, but you have no way to provide for it, no way to demonstrate it. Also the idea of Newtonian ether was disproven a long time ago, and even philosophically fails compared to the idea of relativity.
Relativity effects on mass and time have been experimentally verified. So you can’t argue their equations are wrong. As for the rationality (philosophy) behind Relativity, that also makes perfect sense, as does the contemporary physics notions of quantum field theory, gauge fields, force carriers, etc.
So not only do modern notion of all this make sense philosophically but they are described with precision by very complex mathematical equations; and not only that, but they have been experimentally confirmed. Despite all that you wan to cling to som half-formed idea of yours for which you have no actual equations and no actual experimental verification…? Ok. Have fun, but realize you’re just playing a child’s game of “look how smart I am mommy!” without actually learning anything.
Same goes for you as James, if you don’t respond with some substance to my points, I’m simply not going to bother replying.
Says the guy who provides no evidence to disprove my claims, and instead, says im wrong “because the equations say so”
Let me tell you something, using Newton’s equations can prove the speed of a ball rolling down a smooth slope, so if I tell you a molecular ball rolling down a bumpy hill doesnt match newtons equations, you will say i am wrong because i dont have equations and newtons equations=reality
That is exactly my impression of you; young, programmed, naive… zero understanding of the formation of “the facts”, merely another young programmed bot given the idea that he is the one who knows beyond all question and that so very many things “have been proven”, thus feels free to express being a smartass to people he knows zero about (another “fundy extremist”).
Sorry, but for me at the moment you’re a little too young and blinded for this game. Perhaps when I’m more in the mood to entertain beginning sprouts whom I already know have years and years before they get to an interesting level of competent discussion on these issues.
UP1001 might be more interested in your belligerence. I’ve been there, done that enough for now. You have nothing to offer that I haven’t seen over and over.
I think they call it “brash”.
So…
…backatcha. I’ll take it that you were speaking to your own reflection.