Is it me or is that a revolutionary insight, about c being a distance?
Its genius.
Ive been working that problem since I can remember. I got close now and then but never saw this step.
Good thing this site registers the date of you posting it. No wannabe Nobel laureate can claim this find.
i don’t agree with classical philosophy not even modern philosophy as it is too rigid, situational awareness is the most important, to improvise and be flexible in the world view.
EU has a humanitarian crisis, with all the refugees, both from african nations and from middle east, the former should be solved at the root of the problem, where the birth rates are out of control in many nations and even if they’re within the ‘norm’ the population are so vast that it will end in disaster as people will migrate to western countries to seek jobs.
We should pose birth restrictions and reduce the population.
Thats not a subject for this thread.
And its not going to happen.
Ethics is not a “should” in that way. That is morality.
Ethics is the stuff of ethos, which means nature, disposition.
Nature, disposition is first. If the disposition is so inclined and consistent enough for it, it can employ logic.
Talking about genepools is the most productive here.
Talking about situationalism can be done here.
We have to remember that velocity is a vector and the velocity of an object in orbit in the relevant(radial) direction is zero. For all intents and purposes, the object is stationary in the radial direction the same as a book on a table. The rest of what you said is cool. I just wanted to point out that velocity has vector components.
Oh, I thought it did and that was why I mentioned fusion. Oh well. Carry on.
Yes, I am paying attention 
I agree so far.
I’m confused here. If the wave is the oscillation, then why does the underlying material oscillate independently from the wave?
Confused again. I know that a wave with higher frequency has more energy because of your last statement, but your 1st statement says both waves have the same energy (X). As far as I know, all EM waves travel at the same speed, but the higher frequency means more movement per distance and hence more energy is required to maintain that frequency. In other words, the wave won’t slow, but the frequency will. That’s how visible light turns into infrared when meeting an object. Visible light has a higher F and infrared has a lower F, but both travel at c.
I’ve considered Planck units too, but then I read they aren’t rules really. An answer here says, “Planck length is more numerology than physics at this point” physics.stackexchange.com/quest … r-is-it-th
It could be. I previously speculated that c is the speed a particle can travel because adding more energy will actually slow it down because the extra energy turns to matter. In other words, c is the tipping point where photons start turning to mass as more energy is added. I think that is similar to what you’re saying about the minimum wavelength (another tipping point where if we try to go smaller, it turns to mass).
I agree.
I had to read it a few times, but it seems plausible. Mass is saturated energy that can no longer travel as the wave it once was. That does make some sense.
Do you mean particle as a tangible thing or a packet of energy?
How about this: The leading edge of the wave encounters all of the resistance to motion leaving the trailing edge to “squish” up against the front of the wave. All that compression produces a boundary layer.
Well, the reason I ask is that while sitting around a campfire, a guy told me the heat varied by r^4. I don’t know if he was full of bull or not. I could be remembering wrong as well… maybe it was r^3. Anyway, just thought I’d ask.
Ok, if you account for both the sun and the earth, then why would you expect to see a loss of force of gravity from the sun? Earlier you said gravity can’t be a force because, for example, the presence of the earth does not reduce the force by the sun on jupiter. In other words the force by the sun seems to be in unlimited supply, which should indicate that it’s not a real force, but something else. To that I said something like “Yeah but the earth donates the gravity that is takes from the sun, netting no reduction from the sun.”
I wouldn’t pop the champagne cork just yet
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo[/youtube]
The speed of light is determined by something that has nothing to do with light: causality.
Yes, I made those videos. You don’t understand what which “cloud” is??
As far as infinite divisibility, just as there is always a number greater than any number given, there is also always a number lesser than any non-zero decimal. And such numbers represent quantities, of whatever. What is hard to comprehend about that?
Matter “wells up” from a great, great deal of chaotic ultra-minuscule EMR (aka “affectance”). Such is found in the center of stars and black holes. The affectance density must be very high such as expressed in this video:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6-_6__9ZvY[/youtube]
There was no “Big Bang”. Every bit of supposed evidence for it has been shot down. It was a religiously injected notion.
I authored Affectance Ontology because it can be totally, logically proven (it is not a speculation) and it explains literally every scientifically noted observation, even those that scientists preach as unexplainable (even the famed “Young’s Double-Slit” experiment).
If you can follow logic without prejudice, you will become a believer too.
That was a very good video, although I think that he got his cart before his horse on a couple of things. I loved that he properly accredited Henry Lorentz. And what he refers to as “speed of causality” is exactly identical to what I refer to as the “speed of affect”. I used “affect” rather than “cause” simply because existence can be defined in terms of “that which affects”. The term “that which causes” is a little more dubious. It is merely a language and philosophy issue, but the bottom line is that they are identical.
I can explain (again) exactly why it is that light travels at that particular speed and never faster. And yes it is related to causality, but more obviously related to affect. The speed is the fall out of two infinitely fast occurrences yielding a necessarily finite result. And he was also correct about the fact that the universe could not exist at all if affect propagated at an infinite speed. But note that he did not know WHY causality/affect/EMR cannot travel at infinite speed, but rather only that it must travel at a finite speed in order for the universe to exist.
You are right about that. The speed of propagation c, is independent of the “frequency” (“equivalent frequency” - there is no actual oscillation going on) as long as there are no mass particles involved (aka “total vacuum”).
And “c” is NOT a “distance”.
Time is the measure of relative changing between two changing events.
Distance is the measure of the average amount of ambient changing going on in a region (affectance density).
Those are the reasons why relativity works as it does.
And since you mentioned it, “Dark Matter” is merely vast regions of higher affectance density (that green cloudy stuff in the videos), slowing light, creating more gravitational migration (no mass particles required), and skewing measurements of distance (leading to erroneous notions of how far and how fast things are moving). Their use of it in astrophysics is just (even though they seem to be oblivious as to what it is).
Exactly. I have been preaching that for years.
Actually it is the other way around. It is at c that mass becomes light and finally losses all of its “rest mass”. The issue is merely one of whether the entity is formed of affects traveling entirely in a single direction (a “photon”) or whether the entity is formed of a chaos of affects traveling in random directions. All affects (on that level of the physics) travel at exact the same speed (considering their environment), but a mass is formed when the affects traverse each other, causing delays in their propagation. Without those delays, there could be no mass at all. And if you removed all transverse affectance from any mass particle (by magically encouraging it to out run transverse interference) what is left of what was a mass particle is only whatever affects were traveling in the same direction. And that is what a light photon is.
Impressive! The green cloud.
Numbers are a construct. They don’t exist. You can’t use something humans conjured to prove something in reality.
I watched all of them on your channel. What is the basis for the postulation of “ultra-miniscule EMR”? How do you know what is in the center of stars and black holes?
Really? I thought all the evidence was supporting the big bang model.
Well lay it on me!
Yes, I saw that in your video about affecting and thought that things could exist regardless if they affect anything. I don’t see why affectance is necessary to define existence. I mean, for all intents and purposes, you are right, but still.
What? Fallout of infinitely fast occurrences of what? And how does a fallout yield a finite result? And why is it c?
It would be the same point of view that light has now. That’s what I said several pages ago. From the POV of light, there is no universe. To create a universe, slow down the speed of causality then space and time will result. If you want to call it affectance, that’s fine because cause and affect are pretty close.
Yeah, the speed of causality or affectance would depend on how fast states can change. Nothing to do with distance. I think the distance theory was brought up due to the minimum wavelength idea. That would be the highest possible frequency and highest energy state before energy starts turning to mass. My tipping point idea. I’m pretty confident that c just happens to be the point were more energy added will go to creating mass and slow the particle/packet of energy. It seems there are many ways to arrive at the same tipping point whether it be by higgs field or lorenz or whatever. c just happens to be the point that more energy will make mass.
I thought dark matter was black holes. sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/ … lack-holes
So it’s settled then?
You really think so? Maybe it goes both ways. I don’t see why not. The important thing is the tipping point. That’s the answer to the question of why light travels the speed it does… because if it goes slower or tries to go faster, it will have mass and not be light.
Chaos is not random. But on objects that small, randomness is certain.
I like that idea. But where do the affects come from?
I guess that seems right. I just need to learn more about this affectance idea.
Hahaha,
Funny.
The idea that causality has nothing to do with light. That there is anything that causality’s nothing to do with.
Carry on.
Cleary, all science is about describing the conditions of causality.
This is why I work wit logic, so as to see if I can produce these conditions from irreducible logical axioms.
RM doesn’t work because it has the end product of its calculations fulfill the required condition of the beginning steps.
What causes a unit of affectance to affect another unit? “It simply does because in RM existence is called affectance” is the official answer.
But the real answer is that statistical infinitesimals aren’t realities.
My question to James has been, since 2010, and incessantly for years, how does one infinitesimal of affectance affect the next one?
The only answer I ever got was: it just does, because it is affectance.
James has given a name to existence, then took that name as a mathematical Constant, then juggled with some standard deviations, and figured peaks to be particles, because they stand out so manifestly in his graph.
Its absolute hogwash.
It is what jugglers do.
What does RM explain in the moment? Nothing, it can not explain a thing.
Whereas value ontology explains precisely what is happening, here and now in this thread;
different perspectives are unfolding their consequentiality so as to integrate each others consequences in their own terms.
Nietzsche called this will to power, Einstein called it Relativity, both describe it on different levels -
Value Ontology unfolds it as logic.
It applies to any identifiable unit of existence
Logic is the basis of physics, it is not an emulation of an imaginary subset of physics.
Serendipper - I guarantee, am willing to bet a million dollars that James will refuse and/or fail to explain RM to the point of you being able to do your calculations and verify his claims. I guarantee that you will not be able to arrive at any verifiable scientific proposition.
I also guarantee that following through value ontology will allow you to arrive at many verifiable scientific propositions, but obviously this depends on your intelligence and will to do so, so I wont bet the million bucks on that.
A nice example of how RM is hollow is to have it explain movements in economy in terms of currencies or precious metals.
it can’t. It couldn’t possibly tell you why one metal is more valuable to humans than another, or how people organize actions around a currency.
It couldn’t possibly discern criteria.
Because “affectance” is criterion-neutral.
Meaning that it describes the non-existence of existence.
Value, one other hand, applies as differentiation. Which is part of the reason it is the very basis of any axiom-setting; it allows us to discern real criteria.
RM literally has no tangible criteria. Nor has it tangible results.
Ive tried since 2010 to get James to make a single demonstrably relevant calculation, to have a single thing he says pertain directly to physics. It simply is not something he does.
Take him up on it, Serendipper. Jealousy makes for such deep hearted liars. They need punishment to regain perspective and respect for truthfulness.
Lols.
Yeah, good times. “Reality is made of tiny worms, that just sort of clump up and form stuff. Why? Because reality is wormy!”
Eh.
Serendipper, you made two very nice insights: that if more energy is added to the photon then it slows down by converting into mass (a consequence of how I described c as minimal possible distance of oscillation), and the idea that the front of the wave impacts this saturation point while the rest of the wave compresses and forms the barrier.
Very nice.
I would suggest to Fixed Cross to value himself a bit more. His desperate attempt to gain followers by putting others down is truly embarrassing. It tells more about him than about the people he attacks. And in this case it is more than ridiculous, even tragic, as he and his incapable friend were never able to grasp what James was talking about.
Ontology and epistemology have a dialectic, which is why they are both subsumed under metaphysics. These two questions are related: What can we know, and what has true existence. Each dictates the other. I’m not certain you can separate them. I think you need to look at their conclusions and sit in the armchair and think it through and go through it again and again until you get a hunch of whichever two answers go together correctly. I think this may be looked as “The whole is more important than the parts.” No?
The fate of science. Science assumes an objective reality called “matter”. So a scientist sets up a system to discover it and Voila! I said that matter existed and now I have proved it! This is Hegel’s criticism of the relation of the two questions.
I’m a common sense pragmatist of the Thomas Reid and William James Variety. William James might look at this problem and think, “What’s in your best interest to assume first.” Thomas Reid is very skeptical of ideal (idea) theories thinking common sense as an intuitional and foundational philosophy.
Where/which are these axioms, though? And how are they axioms, i.e., self-evidently worthy?
You have affirmed that the term “self-valuing” is inadequate. I’ve been thinking in terms of Aristotle’s noesis noeseos lately: axiosis axioseos, or perhaps axiosis tes autes axioseos–the valuing of valuing, or the valuing of the same valuing. I don’t think this is just formally related to Aristotle’s formula, either; I think, seemingly contrary to you, that valuing requires at least a rudimentary form of consciousness:
This is very promising, but I’m still missing something. Precisely if the doctrine of the will to power is true–i.e., corresponds to reality–, the doctrine must itself be an act of the will to power–i.e., an imposition, a violation of reality–; it cannot be simply true.
You have compared “self-valuing” to Crowley’s “Love under Will”: beneath the surface of the will to power, within it, there must be a kind of love (eros?): the will to power cannot be blind will, but must include a representation, an idea, a vision of the “beloved”, of the Other. In Value Ontology, the way I understand it, this idea is a projection of the Self, i.e., of the valuing that the “self-valuing” is. This implies a kind of self-reflection. Two puzzle pieces’ fitting into each other explains nothing; the puzzle piece that is the “self-valuing” in question recognizes everything it comes across only insofar as it is or can be a fitting puzzle-piece for it, and strives to make it fit insofar as it is not. This then also applies to VO itself: it is the attempt by a “self-valuing”, or multiple “self-valuings”, to make everything that does, did, will, or could exist correspond to its metaphysics, or its logic.
