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.

Moderator: Only_Humean
James S Saint wrote: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.
James S Saint wrote: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.
James S Saint wrote: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.
James S Saint wrote: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".
James S Saint wrote: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.
encode_decode wrote:How much error is allowed for in the equation?
encode_decode wrote:are we not regarding some uncertainty when the altering of mass must happen so quickly?
James S Saint wrote:encode_decode wrote:How much error is allowed for in the equation?
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.encode_decode wrote:are we not regarding some uncertainty when the altering of mass must happen so quickly?
"so quickly"??
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 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.
encode_decode wrote:I like the idea of doing this before anything else: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.
Like you said the field will appear smoother than afflates rustling about.
Arcturus Descending wrote:encode_decode wrote:I like the idea of doing this before anything else: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.
Like you said the field will appear smoother than afflates rustling about.
What are afflates? Leaves? OK
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?
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.
Arcturus Descending wrote:What are afflates?
encode_decode wrote: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.
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.
James S Saint wrote:$$dx = afNearList.n.x - Poi.x$$ $$dy = afNearList.n.y - Poi.y$$ $$dz = afNearList.n.z - Poi.z$$
$$afNearList.n.d = \sqrt{dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2}$$
$$Poi.density = \frac{Poi.density + afNearList.n.density}{1 + Poi.density * afNearList.n.density}, for\;all\;n$$
$$af.n.x\quad += af.n.vx$$$$af.n.y\quad += af.n.vy$$$$af.n.z\quad += af.n.vz$$$$for\;each\;af.n$$
encode_decode wrote:So that looks like a proximity calculation to me for each afflate within range of the point of interest
James S Saint wrote:encode_decode wrote:So that looks like a proximity calculation to me for each afflate within range of the point of interest
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.
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 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.
encode_decode wrote:James
It feels like there are a few first things to do now - for me the first thing to do is get organized as quickly as possible.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.
So if this is our primary target then in a nutshell I would say subatomic particles form through a gradient.
encode_decode wrote:It is a lack of organization that is slowing us down
The proof for that comes without trying or intention.
All you need to do next is create a routine to fill in afNearList.n for each cubic region Poi
or you can skip that and just go ahead and use each afflate as the Poi between each tic.
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.
encode_decode wrote:James, I believe the following is key to my understanding of what you mean by field in the first place.
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.
When you say point by point, you are certainly talking about cutting the resolution of the analysis into a pre-chosen set of measurements, much the same as is done with afflates. I am thinking you are referring to visualizing a cubic lattice of a pre-determined unit size.
encode_decode wrote:James
What you are suggesting seems easy enough to do . . .
. . . so what would be next on your list?
encode_decode wrote:James
Between what you just posted and the metabox solution, you seem to have given me the complete solution.
Am I off the mark?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users