Reality - Version 0.1

[encode_decode]

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.

[James S Saint]

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.

[encode_decode]

James

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

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.

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:

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.

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?

[encode_decode]

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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

[James S Saint]

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.

are we not regarding some uncertainty when the altering of mass must happen so quickly?

"so quickly"??

[encode_decode]

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.

are we not regarding some uncertainty when the altering of mass must happen so quickly?

"so quickly"??

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

[encode_decode]

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.

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

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.

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.

[Arcturus Descending]

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

[encode_decode]

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

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.

[encode_decode]

James wrote: 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.

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

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?

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

[encode_decode]

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]

What are afflates?

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.

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.

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;

$$dx = afNearList.n.x - Poi.x$$ $$dy = afNearList.n.y - Poi.y$$ $$dz = afNearList.n.z - Poi.z$$
$$afNearList.n.d = \sqrt{dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2}$$

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;

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.

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;

$$Poi.density = \frac{Poi.density + afNearList.n.density}{1 + Poi.density * afNearList.n.density}, for\;all\;n$$

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

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

$$af.n.x\quad += af.n.vx$$$$af.n.y\quad += af.n.vy$$$$af.n.z\quad += af.n.vz$$$$for\;each\;af.n$$

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.

[encode_decode]

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.

[James S Saint]

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.

[encode_decode]

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.

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.

[encode_decode]

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.

This way is a better way to put it that additive interference is what we are looking at - I knew a long time ago that this part of the project could be brought down to additions and subtractions - the beauty of simple mathematics - this is what reality is doing - simple mathematics - we are the ones who convolute the situation.

Affect upon affect . . . elegant!

[encode_decode]

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.

It is a lack of organization that is slowing us down - nothing else - aside from I have been busy.

Our documentation is at times sporadic - something I have been trying to solve - I believe I now have a sufficient solution.

[James S Saint]

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.

The proof for that comes without trying or intention.

It is a lack of organization that is slowing us down

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.

[encode_decode]

The proof for that comes without trying or intention.

Actually I think the proof for all of this follows the same line as in the quote.

All you need to do next is create a routine to fill in afNearList.n for each cubic region Poi

Too simple - it is similar to what I have.

or you can skip that and just go ahead and use each afflate as the Poi between each tic.

Actually, we could do both. And that way targeting could be switched around with ease too.

[encode_decode]

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.

Anyhow, I will show you my example as soon as I get setup on this new computer system - a matter of installing a few packages.

[James S Saint]

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.

Yes. Divide the whole metaspace cube into a (perhaps) 40x40x40 block of cubes, each of the 64,000 a "region". Whenever you move an afflate, un-register it from whatever region that it was in and register it into the region it falls into. Then in order to display the entire field, merely add the afflates for each region together and display each region as a single object.

Afflates are added to a region by:
$$region.x.density = \frac{region.x.density+af.n.density}{1+region.x.density*af.n.density},\quad for\;all\;n$$
And regional charge polarity (the color):
$$ region.x.polarity = region.x.polarity \;\;+\;\; af.n.polarity,\quad for\;all\;n$$

That will yield a "cubic display" (low resolution) of a wavering field. Such is not necessary, but will create an interesting visual.

After that, go back to attending to each afflate's immediate surroundings in order to determine the ambient density for each afflate individually. For that process, a "afNearList.n" (or perhaps "afProximity.n") must be filled in for each afflate. That process requires a little more finesse.

[encode_decode]

James

What you are suggesting seems easy enough to do . . .

. . . so what would be next on you list?

[James S Saint]

James

What you are suggesting seems easy enough to do . . .

. . . so what would be next on your list?

Next on the list is to display it.

An array of 100,000 afflates with attributes;

x_location
y_location
z_location
x_vector
y_vector
z_vector
density
polarity
compression
original_size
original_gradient
region

Original values:

x_position = rand() * spaceWidth
y_position = rand() * spaceHeight
z_position = rand() * spaceDepth
x_vector = rand() - 0.5
y_vector = rand() - 0.5
z_vector = sqrt(1 - x_vector^2 - y_vector^2)
density = rand() * intensity
polarity = rand() - 0.5
compression = 0
size = rand() * (spaceWidth/numberOfRegionsX) * 0.5
gradient = rand()
region = x_position + (y_position * numberOfRegionsX) + (z_position * numberOfRegionsX^2)

An array of 64000 regions;

density_accumulation
polarity_sum

Display each region by density_accumulation * polarity_sum on a range from -1, yellow to +1, blue.
For each Afflate;

Step each location by its vector
Compensate for borders
Update afflate region

For each region;

Accumulate densities
Sum polarities

Loop to Display

Adjust intensity for effective display.
Make video
Publish video

[encode_decode]

James

Between what you just posted and the metabox solution, you seem to have given me the complete solution.

Am I off the mark?

[James S Saint]

James

Between what you just posted and the metabox solution, you seem to have given me the complete solution.

Am I off the mark?

You still have to choose which NearList method you prefer. A link list is faster, but more complicated to organize. A simple search and contrast is easy, but much more CPU intensive.

After that cubic display, returning to calculating from each afflate rather than from each region, there is more to organizing and consider.

Once that is done, the "affects-upon-affects", "afflate engagement" can begin wherein speed, size, trajectory, and "wind" come into play.

The issue of what I call "ambient wind" is a little interesting because it is opposite to intuitive macro-scale expectations (one of the reasons that Michelson-Morley was invalid). Afflates veer INTO a cross wind, they are not carried with it as a mass particle would be. But that is down the road a bit.

And then passed all of the gravitation, charged particle, and polyparticle demonstrations, there is the issue of flowing charged particles and magnetism, a very complex issue. Then atomic structure and valence bonding, recreating the periodic table from scratch.

All of that is merely the physics. How all of it relates to psychology, sociology, economics and other fields becomes more obvious from the demonstrations and a little explanation.