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
- as the very notion of a unit of existence represents simply that - a perspective that manages to relate other perspectives to its consequences.
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.
Thanks friend, but it was serendipity. This video gave me the idea that waves of light can compress:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6HxdUQm5s[/youtube]
The energy added in the separation of quarks producing more quarks in the other video helped me realize that energy goes directly into mass and mass cannot go the speed of light. It was a simple step from there to postulate that energy added to a photon will slow it down by producing mass and that has to be why c is what it is.
I’m not sure how frequency (wavelength) ties in, but it seems that energy added to gamma rays that would otherwise serve to increase frequency instead may transform into matter and thereby produce a maximum frequency as well as velocity of propagation.
The chart at 4:44 in the video below was insightful as well as the chart at 5:15 which seemed to indicate that “particles” may not be discrete in identity.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AamFQWwh94[/youtube]
Maybe the electron is a photon with a bit more energy added and likewise on down the list. Could there be particles between the photon and neutrino and between the electron and neutrino? Could the list be continuous? If not, why not?
Another question that needs answering is what is the lowest frequency and why. 0.1Hz have been detected, but is there a lower bound? It’s amazing to think about a 0.1Hz EM wave traveling at the speed of light. How close to 0 can it get? What happens at zero?
How does energy tie into force? If energy is used to produce a force, what is the frequency of that energy? Does it have a frequency? If not, then is EM radiation with a 0 frequency responsible for force? Could mass decay in the absolute lowest energy state of 0 Hz in the form of gravity? Would that explain why gravity is so weak?
Lots of questions remain.
The real beauty here is that if energy makes mass and mass decays back to energy then the universe can recycle itself seemingly forever. It’s like a huge ecosystem. Then the question will be where the fundamental laws came from. Are there various energy fields with different properties and laws and we just happened to be in the universe that worked? If so, where did they come from? And where are they? Obviously, we could never prove such a thing.
S - No, it is rather that each perspective, formula, entity, behaves as a self valuing, (trying to integrate the rest in its terms) and that this is self-evident.
You seem to conflate the term with the logic. Ive expressed a need of a more intuitively fitting term for the logic.
The logic, the idea, the philosophy has been hermetically completed and sealed, perfected, the very instant I conceived of it.
If it hadn’t been, it would obviously not be a logic.
I can’t precisely tell from your post how much is still unclear to you. I know you generally think in relevant areas, but from my perspective as a VO-ist it always is you who is mystifying, putting terms like self and consciousness into the equation where they are entirely out of place in VO.
Naturally, a logic that defies the logic of object-subject grammar (the thing Nietzsche and Heidegger tried to resolve) can not be simply expressed in that same grammar. It needs to be grasped logically, purely, abstractly, as a method, a new conception of method, of logic - basically a purely active agent.
Existence is active - there is nothing that it enforces on itself that it isn’t itself. Unless the opposite can be demonstrated, this is self-evident.
Reality is will to power. Does reality enforce itself on itself? Well, yes. But that doesn’t make it an artifice or a mystification. I don’t mystify reality if I shoot someone in the head. I just enact it. Even though that persons perspective is then gone, I haven’t done anything artificial or mystical.
Valuing is not a form of consciousness. Consciousness is a form of valuing.
Noted. Your two names are too similar.
Yes. One that allows for extreme amounts of inaccuracy and uncertainty, thus for the experience of time, of periods between relatively fixed states where things are merely possible, not necessary - this is what consciousness is. The (apparent) absence of necessity.
Once consciousness amounts in a decision, it disappears. Like once it amounts in an orgasm.
Consciousness is what exists between a valuing and the sufficient resolution of that valuing. It is a suspended state, in which the law of self-valuing logic takes hold anew, as on a new near-void, a new chaos.
Ideas are entities inside consciousness.
Sometimes an idea actually pervades and penetrates consciousness, such as this idea of mine and Nietzsches - in which case it transforms the entire fabric of that consciousness, makes it less arbitrary, less free to err, more bound to its ground - true to the Earth. This is why almost everyone hates it. Fear of the Earth - justified fear.
The Earth has no democratic laws, no protection for the weak, no bias in favour of stupidity.