When you sit down, it is the chair rising to you?

Does this theory take into account planet rotation and or just revolving around the sun and moon revolving? I am now waiting to have my chair miss my butt. Too much booze does that but, now may I blame this theory??

Relativity doesn’t work on rotation. I’m afraid you’re going to have to blame your butt. :sunglasses:

Are you being ironic on purpose? Because that’s literally relativity.

That’s not relativity, relativity doesn’t operate between proper nouns.

The chair and the butt are getting closer along a certain trajectory at a certain rate of speed. A tiny fly in the air between them may not be able to tell which is moving. An ant stuck to your butt would almost certainly percieve the chair moving towards them, just as we percieve the sun rising and moving through the sky.

Relativity deals with the math of the chair and the butt (and the ant and the fly), but it seems to me “Which one is moving” isn’t just a question of the math of their changing relative distances and speeds, it’s also a question of casuation. Your butt is moving, and not the chair. The reason is that the cause of this motion is your knees bending. Your knees bending gives a very simple mathematical explanation for why your butt would descend toward the chair, and it gives no explanation at all for why the chair (and the world) would be pulled toward your butt. Further more, we know that your knees are bending because you decided to bend them, and not because the world is pushing up at your feet and forcing them to bend; those would be two completely different experiences.

Relative to the other large objects in the known universe and their trajectory and position to each other, for the overwhelming part, your ass moved towards the chair. The chair only moved an infinitesimal fraction of your movement towards it, towards you.

In terms of acceleration your ass accelerated and deaccelerated much more than the planet.

→ Your ass moved towards the chair for the most part.

And thus your ass was retarded a little more. :sunglasses:

Physics is weird man.

It gets weirder, much weirder.

I don’t even known that much physics but I know less calculus so it gets real incomprehensible real quickly. Thankfully, most things make intuitive sense without having to take an integral and since we’re in a relatively constant frame I rarely have to fail to solve a double integration.

The world is wide and wonderful. Sometimes you aren’t going to understand it all. Isn’t that part of the wonder?

I can’t see how the earth is moving at all, if for example we consider that it is ‘in position’ relative to all the forces which put it there so to say. then when you go to sit down that’s a different set of later events, and far larger forces would have been relatively moving the planet nearer to them, like the sun and all which makes the solar system take shape. if the act of sitting relatively moves all the particles of the earth, all the other particles in the universe would be making it stay in place.

or maybe relativity only exists when we observe a few particles, but doesn’t exist et al as we move towards the macroscopic scale of existence. after all, we can measure that with almost atomic accuracy?

Don’t know whats weird about physics. It’s just a bunch of fluids binded together by some magnetic force. My best guess is magnetism is an aether vortex. That is the part where it gets weird.

Pretty close to “right on”.

Ok, so what do we mean by ‘aether vortex’ and ‘affectance’ or similar theories? What is their base nature e.g. In my ‘cosmic blender’ theory it is clear that reality [when blended at the cosmic level] is one simple thing [the simplest thing], and that info shapes that and must come from it. …which in my mind must be fluidic even between things like matter and thought or the words in a book or the meaning of a painting.

is there is a oneness to your theories? As in a one thing before any iteration of multiplicity.

The nice thing is, we don’t have to guess! We still don’t know much, much less everything but we’ve got lots of answers. I don’t understand a lot of them but I know people who do. And they know me, a specialist in another area of esoteric knoweldge. It’s cool that we, as a species, know so much that everybody is basically fucked in terms of knowing it all. So latch on to what you know, have fun, and trust each other!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCbvMML95QM[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkfLaeunLaU[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teddr0p__xQ[/youtube]

When you drive down the road and your wheels are spinning, is your car the one moving, or the world itself? As you walk, are you the one moving as you walk, or does the world move under you?

James, surely there was a time prior to Affectance? Like before the big bang. Not to mention other perhaps far greater things than universe, like infinity. Put all things and all personhood in the cosmic blender, and the result is no things and no personhood. Yet that is not nothing but is oneness ~ an emptiness which is one thing. Affectance would surely have something like that at root or within its context?

No. The lack of affectance is an impossibility. There could never have been a time when the universe was not infinite in all directions and filled with (made of) affectance. Mass is merely extremely dense affectance and “empty” space is merely extremely thin affectance. There was no beginning and there can be no end of the universe. Relativity works merely because the more dense the affectance, the more compact the distance and time.

Affectance IS that “root” substance from which literally ALL physical things are made. All mass, gravitation, electromagnetism, electric charge, light, particles, momentum, inertia, everything is formed of affectance.

It isn’t merely a theory. There is no choice at all in the matter. The necessarily infinite universe is made entirely of affectance and nothing else but variation in density and arrangement.

Affectance is not the simplest thing though?, and reality requires that oneness is at base, as two or more instances of anything yields a third sphere in which they inhabit ergo, you always end up at reality as being one, and simplicity comes before complexity. Affectance is a complexity is it not!

Yes, affectance is the simplest substance. Potential-to-Affect, PtA, is the simplest concept expressed in physical reality (virtually identical to electric potential energy). PtA changing is what forms affectance. And it is necessarily always changing, creating our entire physical reality.

See above.

Is the simplest substance the same as the simplest thing?.. For example, potentiality I assume moves into affect like a curve. That’s a chain of things/facets/principles/information, or a process and a processing set of events. Now all you need is something to be making that process happen, even >if< a bunch of limits can be called infinite and unlimited somehow. Calculus is metaphoric, you could not stretch a finite/limited object into an infinite one, nor squeeze an infinite object into a box of any size. reality must be empty at base for the reasons above [circles within circles]. even if the process of affectance were infinite it still needs some reason why it exists, and what stops nothing from existing.