Reality - Version 0.1


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

I guess that would depend upon who you are trying to prove it to. The more random afflates there are, the more accurately physical reality will be represented.

“so quickly”?? :confusion-scratchheadyellow:

Ah, never mind, I thought I would throw it out there. We will see how it all goes as we go.

:smiley:

I like the idea of doing this before anything else:

Like you said the field will appear smoother than afflates rustling about.

I think it also gives me a clue about the following:

The averaged affectance density must be similar to the ambient affectance density. For an experiment they could be treated as the same or a useful tool.

What are afflates? Leaves? OK
:evilfun:

I guess you could say they are leaves - leaves are made of the the same stuff we are studying - just that god has them pre-packaged for us already. Leaves decay to become part of the universe that we imagine they come from. In fact they never became separate from the universe - it is just an illusion.

James wrote: The field, although still rustling about, will be smoother, more like a shifting cloud.

I still do not quite understand what you are saying here.

I am going to average between afflates surrounding the point chosen for study.

:-k

The decrease could be determined through interpolating next points from two previous points and two previously averaged points.

4.25 - 4.24 will lead to 4.23

4.21 - 4.18 will lead to via the following

4.24 - 4.23 - 4.21 - 4.18 to 4.14 because the drop has been decreasing one at a time.

Then the same could be done from another point in the field that is approaching the point that we just studied.

We would need at least 6 points in 3 dimensions from guessing.

The method could be fixed around the vector of the afflate’s travel.

In case you were serious, an afflate is an “affectance oblate” representing a minuscule portion of space-stuff, “affectance”. With millions of random afflates zipping about, the effects of actual physical space, energy, and mass can be emulated.

I’m not sure that I am following you, so let me try to explain one way of doing this, from which you can deviate as you wish.

1. Always the first thing to do is to form a list of nearby afflates to the point-of-interest,
afNearList.n, where n has a value from 0 to 10000. At the center of a particle, n gets huge even though in free space, n might be merely 2 or 3.

2. Calculate the distance between the point of interest, Poi, and each afflate center in the afNearList as explained before;

3. Use the assigned radius of each afflate to allow for afflate size to affect afflate nearness;
afNearList.n.d -= afNearList.n.r

4. Fill in the effective afflate density values for each afNeaList.n assuming a linear gradient . This is the “fuzzy” part of each afflate. In more developed versions, this gradient should be assigned a random value for each afflate;
If afNearList.n.d =< 0;
[list]afNearList.n.e = afNeaList.n.density
If afNearList.n.d > 0;
afNearList.n.e = afNearList.n.density - afNearList.n.d
If afNearList.n.e =< 0;
afNearList.n.e = 0, having no affect upon the point of interest.[/list:u]

5. SUM the effective density values into the point-of-interest ambient total. As density has an upper limit of 1, a simple sum will not due. We are adding noise to noise;

6. Display all points of interest densities (the ambient field).

7. Increment each afflate in accord with its velocity (at the moment, always = 1);

8. Repeat 1-8

After that is working properly, we allow the ambient density to affect the velocity, size, and density of each afflate. At that point, if the average random density is set too high, clumps will begin to form as traffic jams emerge. But there are still other engagement rules required in order to have true particle formation.

James

So that looks like a proximity calculation to me for each afflate within range of the point of interest - I can see why you were not following me.

I was talking about splitting the calculation up by interpolating points around the point of interest - effectively performing a compression of sorts.

  1. Get every second point around the point of interest.
  2. Interpolate every other point around the point of interest.
  3. Calculate for density with interpolation.

Don’t be too concerned about what I am saying because I am following the mathematics you presented in your last post - I am only trying to save on cycle time so that we can study larger fields. You did recommend that we study smaller fields so I am going to stick with what you are saying for the time being.

Yes, “proximity” is the right word. The afflates have no association with each other except where they overlap. There should be no implied interpolation between them. They are each headed in their own direction. They each have their own affect upon what they run across. There is nothing between afflates other than more afflates each headed in its own direction. Ideally there are an infinity of singly directed, independent afflates at every point in space. Other than additive interference, they have nothing to do with each other.

The interpolation that I speak of is different to how you are perceiving what I am saying - we are getting side tracked here, however we can double the resolution for the same cost. Such proximity and density calculations are not entirely unknown to me James and some are very expensive to run in code, not that I am worried or in the least concerned about this. Let us remain on topic though. We want a field.