Back to the field emulation…
I have put two sentences of my own in here as well as making four edits(for clarity), the rest is written by James . . .
PtA
PtA, Potential-to-Affect, refers to a physical situation, an arrangement of substance, not the substance itself. Space is similar in that regard. As PtA changes, it becomes the physical substance called “affectance”. And PtA is always undergoing changes, being affected as it affects. Affectance is the changing of the PtA situation. Affectance is the changing whereas PtA is the arrangement of the changing that is itself being changed. It is easiest to think of PtA as an electric field and affectance as a electromagnetic wave (EMR). An electric field is merely a situation, not a substance. And an electromagnetic wave is an electric field that is changing.
The physical affects the physical and the meta affects the meta. And at times, they are the same thing.
The PtA is the arrangement of affectance being emulated and Afflates are just a chosen portion of affectance to study during the emulation . . .
Ambient Density
The next concern is choosing how you are going to calculate the ambient density for each individual afflate. It might be interesting to display a point by point averaged affectance density so as to get a better feel for the actual field rather than watching racing afflates. The field, although still rustling about, will be smoother, more like a shifting cloud.
Again, this is a time when you have some freedom to pick and choose which way you would like to setup the field. You have specific afflate characteristics defined as if they were marbles (not yet “fuzzy”), yet the field has no such hard objects within. So if asked what the field density is as some point, {d,e,f}, precisely how are you going to use the local afflates to determine (to declare) the precise density … at any point chosen?
By “point”, I merely mean a chosen location within the space. And yes, choose a type of averaging that will yield the kind of field you are trying to form (smoother, choppier,…). And you will want to make that a “hook” so that you can play with it later.
A point can be chosen with any resolution I guess, obviously there is more than two “things” involved but points are infinitely small so I could base my average on a small or large selection.
You could, just for example, have a linear decrease in afflate characteristic with distance from surrounding afflates. Or it could be exponential, giving a more choppy effect. I would recommend a very limited local distance for the range of evaluation so as to not consume too much processor time. I had to think for a while to figure a way to quickly evaluate each afflate’s (or location point’s) immediate surrounding. Of course, you are free to choose your own method.
Realize that the afflates do not interact with each other directly. Each afflate interacts with it’s immediate ambient field, which is an indirect association with the combination of the other local afflates. Each afflate interacts with the averaged affect of all local afflates.
- dx = difference in x values, “differential”.
- Af1.x = x coordinate of Afflate1 (then Af21.x, Af53.x,…)
- x = x coordinate of the point of interest.
- d = distance between point of interest and a local afflate.
Actually, I guess that your notation will be more like, “Af.1.x” or some such.
One could do the simple yet smart thing and just search the entire list of afflates to see which ones are close enough to be concerned with. To save processor search time, I chose to divide the entire cubic space into many cubical regions, 40x40x40 regional cubes. Every time an afflate moved, I recorded which region it was in. Then each region had a list of the only afflates of concern. Then in order to save memory space (perhaps not relevant in your case), I created a set of dynamic link-list functions to prevent wasted space (AddToLinkList, DeleteFromLinkList,…). Each afflate remembers the region. Each region stores an entry point into the link-list for all afflates. The search time turned out to be very quick without wasting memory resource.
Of course going down the link-list, each associated afflate had to be measured for closeness and varied trial formulas were used to decide how much affect each close afflate would have on the average at the point of interest (the afflate under calculation). The size of the afflates is very relevant at this point.
An additional issue is raised when you realize that one cannot merely examine a single region in order to average in all near afflates. Depending on how close the afflate is to a regional border, adjacent regions must also be included in the averaging. Unfortunately that requires the process to be considerably longer. I used a special table to provide quick region adjacency pointers, but the processor still had to go through each adjacent region’s link-list.
The examination of the local region to resolve the ambient affectance took most of the processor time. Once the ambience is resolved (still involving much more than currently discussed), how to move to afflate is very complex, involving the more sophisticated math (trig functions and such), but not terribly time consuming.
Light Photons
Light photons (light bundles of energy) are extremely large puffs of affectance (relative to afflate sizing) traveling in a single direction. Such large groups have to “swim” through the ambient affectance field and thus their speed is dependent upon the density of that field.
A field of absolute zero affectance is not physically possible, but the thought of it allows for a measuring point for “zero density” (absolute nothingness). IF such a zero-field existed, affectance would travel through that zero-field at a particular speed (infinite speed is impossible due to all affects requiring time). A puff of affectance with zero resistance must propagate as fast as any affect can possibly travel. That much is logically required.
A puff of light traveling through an “absolute vacuum” would be the same as an afflate traveling through absolute nothingness. And thus the propagation speed of both would be identical = “the speed of light in an absolute vacuum” = “c0”.
Real light photons can never actually do that and in fact, due to their size, there is always an afflate that is propagating faster than any light photon. But the difference between them is almost immeasurably small. So practically speaking, the speed of light in an absolute vacuum, the speed of an afflate in zero density ambient affectance, and the fastest propagation speed possible are all the same.
Gravitation
I am saying that what we call “gravity” is both physical in every location where it is operating and also “gravity” is a concept at all times. But as stated, there are no “forces”. Gravity is not a force, but rather a “gradient migration” (a migration due to an affectance density gradient).
Gravitating is what particles do when they are in an affectance density gradient (ie. denser gradually becoming less dense or vsvrsa). Particles migrate into the higher affectance density (assuming no polarity is involved).
Gravitation behaves such as to give the appearance of a pulling force. For all practical purposes, it might as well be a pulling force. But what is actually happening has nothing to do with forces pulling or pushing anything. The center point of each particle is merely getting reconstructed a little closer to the more dense affectance field - closer to the other mass.