Reality - Version 0.1

1 ► Calculate the ambient density for each individual afflate.
2 ► Toy with Afflate Scatter.
3 ► Calculate the engagement speed for each Afflate.
4 ► Consider all rules of engagement.

[tab]Things I will be taking a little bit of spare time with: I have been experimenting with memory and processor routines and I will be continuing along these lines. I will be further experimenting with doubling the Afflates processed for the larger Meta-Box and I will perhaps make the Meta-Box even bigger. I will continue to make more color adjustments over time(with this as my standard: same amount of distinct yellow as distinct blue, with a lot of green between).[/tab]

This was done intentionally to highlight what we are actually looking at . . .

It looks warm in there - I think I need some water.

:laughing:

I think that coloring is fine. Although the afflates seem to be moving pretty slow.

Do realize that when you double the space dimensions, you require 8 times the afflates in order to maintain the same density.

As we proceed, the afflates will shrink in accord with their ambience. As a particle forms, they become less than pixel size near the center. So to maintain a visible field surrounding the particle, a great many afflates are needed. In my case and in order to prevent having to have too many afflates, once afflates near the center of a particle became extremely small and close together, I combined them into a single afflate with the properties of the combination. It was one of those “close enough” shortcuts so spare resources.

I would put next on your ToDo list, an animated visual of the field rather than the afflates. You can use the regions or center of subdivisions of the regions as the points of interest/measure, rather than afflates. The video should come out interesting.

1 ► Animated visual of the field.*
2 ► Calculate the ambient density for each individual afflate.
3 ► Toy with Afflate Scatter.
4 ► Calculate the engagement speed for each Afflate.
5 ► Consider all rules of engagement.

[tab]*Use the regions or center of subdivisions of the regions as the points of interest/measure, rather than afflates. The video will come out interesting.

Things I will be taking a little bit of spare time with: I have been experimenting with memory and processor routines and I will be continuing along these lines. I will be further experimenting with doubling the Afflates processed for the larger Meta-Box and I will perhaps make the Meta-Box even bigger. I will continue to make more color adjustments over time(with this as my standard: same amount of distinct yellow as distinct blue, with a lot of green between).[/tab]

And your (4) should come before your (3). The scatterer uses both speed and refraction concerns - separate issues.

.
Note the difference in afflate speed:

In that clip, average density for the afflates was set pretty low so that the much higher density of the forming particle could be seen more distinctly. Because the average was so low, each afflate was largely unimpeded. The speed of an unimpeded afflate is always 1 tic/toe, but on your screen, you get to choose by how many pixels a “toe” is represented. If the afflate moves too slowly across the screen, it might take a very long render and “sit-and-watch” time before anything interesting begins to happen.

1 ► Animated visual of the field.
2 ► Calculate the ambient density for each individual afflate.
3 ► Calculate the engagement speed for each Afflate.
4 ► Toy with Afflate Scatter.
5 ► Consider all rules of engagement.

An acknowledgement James

I am glad that you are happy with the coloring. The afflates are moving slow, this was mainly performed in order for you to recognize the depth of field Z.
I was going to be talking with you about speed.

Oh, I do realize that. I am glad you bring these things up however, it shows me that we are on the same page.

Right now I have the colors on a spectrum, as you have no doubt recognized - I also have the opacity changing ready for density calculations. I understand what you are saying about the afflates shrinking and we will have to discuss all of this further. We can make the afflates as small as you need them. A great many afflates is what we are going to have - right now we need to work with manageable numbers that can be repeated in larger sets. We can still take some short cuts as long as the emulator is reflective of reality - the numbers that is.

I really like this idea. You have been giving me a lot of useful material lately James, I appreciate it.

Keep it coming James.

:sunglasses:

Our speed limit is obviously limited by the computations we can perform but we can compensate to get good results.

This is probably still a good thing to hold on to as an experiment I think - it makes for good visuals of demonstration. I will put more thought into what you are saying here. Like I said, keep it coming James.

I will be back with a more meaningful set of responses. I just have to think some responses up first.

:-k

James

I have setup a quicker system to run on - I have another quicker system still to be setup. I have also sped up the afflates - regarding density - that could be kept the same and only the afflates in the particle could be illuminated to give a higher resolution particles. I hope this makes sense.

My mind has been racing with many different ideas on how to create visualizations of higher resolutions.

Whether we like it or not I still feel we will be returning to interpolation on many fronts, especially when we want to visualize larger fields of affectance.

I have a few shortcuts that I have been working on alongside the other things on the current list - it seems this has become necessary if I am to be ready for future updates - what we miss now might become a problem in the future.

:-k

Afflates need to move across the screen quickly so that they can aggregate at the center quickly. That is just a matter of how many pixels represent one toe of distance. I don’t remember where mine was set, but I image somewhere around 5-10 pixels/tic would do it.

I don’t know how you propose to illuminate just the aggregation, but one of the purposes of the visual is to show the natural outcome of events rather than artificially enhanced or manipulated video. With the average afflate density set pretty low, they individually become hard to see. But as a particle forms, the density always rises toward 1, full brilliance. At what could be called the “edge” of the particle, the affectance density slope rises very quickly. It shouldn’t need any help becoming visually evident.

Note the slope in the density graph:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6-_6__9ZvY[/youtube]

What is being seen here is the “meta-natural” edge of a particle as it aggregates (although the initiation of the particle was artificially seeded).

After it is evident that free flowing afflates cause particles to behave in specific ways, the particles can become simulated. That allows for a tremendous decrease in processing times. But you have to prove the precise behavior first.

After the emulated atoms are properly proven, the atoms can become simulated leading to another huge decrease in processing time.

Once the atoms have been simulated and molecules are proven, the molecules can be simulated. That leads into the huge field of chemistry and properties of materials. And it does so with an extreme degree of accuracy … without the formerly required physical experimentation and instrumentation (other than for verification).

Affectance ontology brings a seamless unification between physics and chemistry.


If you will make a copy of that program except have it show the point-by-point average density from the local afflates, you should at first get a somewhat similar video, although more cubic granulated. But then there is something that I wanted to show you.

Once you have a display of the field rather than the afflates, increase the range of the random sizing from one pixel in size to the full metaspace size. You will probably have to increase the number of afflates to achieve the perfect effect, but what should happen is that you begin to see “nothing but space”, because that is what it is supposed to be. The space will be green due to the colors chosen, but if there are enough afflates and the attributes are truly random, there should no longer be any discrete images. Everything will blend. And that is what real space is, a blending of all of the uncountable “afflates” headed in every possible direction, size, density, and PtA. The result is the space that you see between the stars … or rather “don’t see” because there is no discernible distinction and yet a great deal of affectance/“energy” (aka “dark matter”) - invisible to the eye and instrument, yet packed with energy.

Even in outer space, you reside in a thick soup. :sunglasses:

James

I will be resuming in depth conversation with you shortly - thank you for the last two posts.

I would dearly love to put RM, AO, MIJOT and what ever else you have up on my new network so that they can be studied and documented thoroughly - available for many years to come. The big question however is whether you would be interested in that. Would you?

I will also be putting up some polished work of my own, a conversation or two that I have had on this forum, a conversation or two that I have had on another forum and whatever else I deem worthy that is available in this big old world. Permissions are always sought first.

This is a project I have been working on for a while in the background and have had to start devoting significant time to - having RM:AO over on the network would make my life much easier. I can also preserve much of your media this way too as well as the new media that we are producing.

:-k

“New network”??

James

Just a short update. I have been spending quite a bit of time thinking about what you are saying and I think for the prototype we need to keep things small, however, the good news is I am currently working on a decision of which tech to use to initiate the official build of our project. We can still do most of the experiments on a smaller scale in the prototype.

Aside for the many good reasons to have a prototype - the best I can think of was to help me finally grasp what you were teaching me.

I believe I still have a little learning to do but I also believe I have some better methods for achieving our goals on the computer emulation.

The next post I will make will be regarding your reponse to this post and your last few excluding the new network talk(I think we have already resolved this).

:-k

The prototype has barely begun. Currently there is no interaction within the field. The “Rules of Engagement” comprise the essence of existence and bring about the “laws of physics”. Even the prototype needs basic rules of engagement so as to reveal more detail of what might be required by more finished emulators.

And feel free to copy over anything concerning the subject to whatever “network” you are talking about.

We must proceed with the prototype so you are correct. There was no interaction - my current interactions are a little messed up - I will fix them. The rules of engagement are the most important things that we are about to discuss. Yes you are correct the prototype needs basic rules of engagement so as to reveal more detail of what might be required by more finished emulators.

So we are on the same wavelength - I am just excited as I have been for months - to put this baby to the test.

Thank you for sharing your work with me James - I will send you links to it.

=D>

The first thing that you will prove and demonstrate with merely the prototype is exactly how and why subatomic particles form. With a larger system, the monoparticle affectance density equation (“particle energy density”) can be demonstrated and proven, along with its dependence upon ambient affectance density.

$$Ad = \frac{1-Ab }{1 + 4\pi((x-a)^2 + (y-b)^2 + (z-c)^2))}$$

Such will prove to Science the make of subatomic mass particles and that they will alter their mass energy content in accord with how close they are to large masses, such as Earth.

The next thing to prove and demonstrate will be the cause and make of mass gravitation. To the disappointment of Quantum Physics, you will prove that there is no “graviton” in the physical universe (the proposed force-of-gravity carrier). The only particle associated with gravity is the mass particle itself. Along with this proof, it will become obvious that gravitational migration is not due to a magical force emanating from mass particles, but rather due to the gradient affectance field between masses.

And inherently you will be proving that extreme outer space is different than space between the planets and thus gravitational effects should be expected to be a little different. This is a part of the confusion related to cause and make of “dark matter”.

That much is with merely the first stage prototype. Charged particles get a little more sophisticated and interesting. Molecular structure and static magnetism demonstrations might require a larger system.

James

I want to break my questions up a little so I will start from the top by quoting the folowing.

I do believe the prototype is capable of of proving and demonstrating these things you mention. The how has to do with your gradients you have mentioned I am guessing. I am trying to visualize this as I write but it is kind of difficult and I think that is what your equation is attempting to do. How much error is allowed for in the equation?

My question is justified as soon as I read:

Now whether or not I am asking the right question here is another story but are we not regarding some uncertainty when the altering of mass must happen so quickly?

:-k

Secondarily

I for some reason was imagining gravity to be some sort of congestion but I will go with this and also read back over all of my notes.

I do not believe there is a graviton, such is still dealing with discretized matter and that should only be a matter of convenience in such cases. Mass makes a lot more sense but again I need to read over some of my notes because there seems to be a little ambiguity in what you are saying here and what you have said before - I am sure it is nothing as usual - it usually helps if I bring related information together to make more sense of it.

Now this is something that is interesting.

We are working with dark matter or not? We have not really touched on that much you and I.

I agree and we should discuss this further and at length a little later on.

:-k