Rational Metaphysics: Exclusion Barrior

In Physics, as a small negative particle approaches a larger-mass positive particle, a barrier is formed by the maximum change rate between the negative and positive potentials forbidding affectance to proceed at its prior rate toward the positive particle. This aberrant effect constitutes an exclusion barrier forbidding a small negative particle from getting too close to a larger positive particle.

When this happens, the affectance within the negative particle that was headed toward the positive particle is delayed long enough for the congestion that defines the small negative particle to shift tangent to the positive particle vector. The negative particle begins to orbit around the larger positive particle rather than head directly toward it.

This orbit continues because the negative congestion is still most tempted to head toward the positive particle but the exclusion barrier follows the boundary between the negative and positive particle, always favoring a tangent shift and disallowing motion toward the positive particle.

In contemporary physics, the aberrant effect of this exclusion barrier is referred to as the “electroweak force”. The fundamental cause of this perceived "force" is merely the same maximum change rate that causes all of the other physical properties.

Socially this is the principle causing the forbidding of specific types of people from joining contrary types of organizations such as churches, secretive orders, police departments, forum participation rights, and so on. It creates the member / non-member dichotomy.

Cognitively, this is the principle that disallows the acceptance of thoughts that are too contrary to the larger aggregation of resident thoughts and creates the hysteresis of perception bias; "That doesn't make sense to me", "Does not compute". Emotionally, this same effect takes place by merely the appearance of something sensed as too negative and thus blocked regardless of possible logical coherence. "I don't care what he says, I don't like him so I'm not going to believe him." And of course subconscious emotional responses affect and even negate cognitive perception such as to often make a simple environment seem inconceivably perplexing to the cognitive mind. Dissonance of the cognition is created by the subconscious exclusion barrier often referred to as a "mental block".

Rational Metaphysics: Standard Infinitesimal

EugeneMorrow wrote:How many points are then in one inch and two inches? As many as you want. Everyone knows that. How many points are then in InfA? As many as you want. That's the problem for RM.

That has been a problem for mathematics and Science, but it isn't a problem for RM because RM addresses and fixes that problem.

What does "God" mean? "Whatever you want it to mean."
Why does the universe exist? "Whatever reason you want."
What do you call the things that atoms are made of? "Whatever you want to call them."
What is an elemental wave? "Whatever you want it to be."

That is how you keep a society ignorant and backwards. Establishing a standard is critical for making progress.

How many points are in a 1 inch line? "As many you want."
Well, that part is true. You are free to set the number of points that you "want" to deal with... once. But of course, if you are using logic, you are not free to then change that number as you go. Since a 2 inch line is already defined by being twice as long as a 1 inch line, you are no longer free to just choose as many points as you want. Otherwise logic and math become useless and anything else you say after that point is truly meaningless.

So if you say that there are going to be 1 million points in a 1 inch line, then you are stuck with having 2 million in a 2 inch line, else why bother even talking about it.

But now if you declare that there are an infinite number of points in a 1 inch line, then in keeping with logic and math, there must be 2 times that many in a 2 inch line, "2 * inf". And that is where current mathematics leaves the room, because current mathematics doesn't define what "2 * inf" mean other than to say that it is "still infinite/boundless". Thus in math, 2 * inf = inf, which of course, using math, "(2 *inf) / inf = 1" which violates the rules of math. You can't use current mathematics with an infinite number of points and make any headway.

Thus in RM, you are to set a standard of interest perhaps saying that a 1 inch line has an infinite number of points, thus establishing an "infinitesimal". And that standard is to be named " infA". Now you can know that a 2 inch line has 2 * infA points and "(2 *infA) / infA = 2". Thus both logic and math are still useful... because you set a standard.

How long is one second? "As long as you want"? Well, that doesn't help anyone and forbids reasoning. Thus a standard is set. "How do you know that they got it right? Maybe what they set isn't really how long a second is." It is whatever they set it to be, end of story.

---------------------------------

This issue comes into play when dealing with the concern of propagation which is a measure using both time and distance. Both time and distance must have a standard set so as to allow reasoning and progress. And when it comes to the infinitesimal issues of both time and distance, a standard must be set for each, as neither are directly related to the other (yet).

So without a formal standard already being set, one is free to choose a standard and then stick to it, for time and also distance. I am free to say that 1 second has infA points of time in it. And I am still free to pick any standard for the number of points in a 1 inch line. As explained before, no matter what standard I choose for the distance infinitesimal, I will have immediately affixed a ratio between time and distance infinitesimal measurements.

So in RM, I chose that they be the same standard so that the ratio will be simply 1, "infAt / infAd = 1", by definition.

Once that is chosen, it is no longer, "as long as you want". And the relation between time and distance measurements are no longer, "whatever you want". Then by merely choosing a name for each unit to represent that standard we have;

1 tic / 1 toe = 1, by definition.

And as explained before that ratio could have been chosen as anything. But as long as it is chosen and defined, there will always be a fixed ratio between time and distance. That fixed ratio is what allows for propagation to have meaningful, "rational" measure.

Of course you are right in that if you allow anything to just mean "anything you want", then there is no point in discussing anything or attempting to reason. But then that would apply to your TEW and QM as well. QM set many standards so as to make the progress it made, as did all of Science.

----------------------

Now, since we are dealing with infinitesimal steps in both time and distance, we know the ratio of those infinitesimals.
If the smallest distance is achieved in the shortest time, it occurred at a rate of 1 toe/tic.

EugeneMorrow wrote:RM declares that 1 toe/tic is the maximum rate of change. Why isn't that value the minimum? Why isn't that value the average? Why is there a maximum rate?

The reason that it is the maximum and not the minimum is because it refers to the ratio of the smallest and shortest possible for each unit. If 1 toe distance is achieved, by definition it took infA steps to do it. And in infA steps, by definition 1 tic would have been achieved. If you achieved N toes in distance, by definition it took N*infA steps in both time and distance.

Thus you cannot get a ratio greater than 1. But if you are slowed for some reason, you might not achieve 1 toe in distance during 1 tic, and thus the achieved propagation could be less than 1, but never greater.

Unless you want to use an ontology wherein the laws of physics are arbitrary and change from one point in space to another, the ratio between your units of measure must remain affixed throughout all space. What would be the point in trying to measure something if the next time you measure it, perhaps in a different location, it is going to be arbitrarily different? There would be no point in having an ontology or Science. You are free to set such ratios once, but then throughout all future calculations, that ratio must remain the same.

Rational Metaphysics: The Equation for Space

Rational Metaphysics, RM, is an ontology for physics formed without the presumptions inherent in the Science of physics and is introduced here.. Rational Metaphysics.

Within RM is an equation that mathematically describes any portion of space, regardless of what is in that space. Anything within that space merely alters a few parameters without change in the equation itself. And of course a part of that equation is time.

The time variable in the equation allows for both post- and predictions throughout all time. In effect, it allows for someone to predict the exact state of that space and whatever might have been in it throughout the future. Or it can be used to calculate what state the space had to have been in prior such as to get to the state it is in.

Of course there are inherent problems. Knowing the truly exact state of any bit of space is all but impossible so trying to simulate any real space would inherently erroneously predict due to improper initialization. Whatever its first given state is, it could never be truly and totally representative of any particular portion of real space. But sometimes close enough, is close enough for the need.

Also amongst the problems is the fact that space is actually infinite in all directions (despite theories and fantasies to the contrary) and thus there is no actual boundary. And because there is no actual boundary in real space, there are affects stemming from outside the given portion under study that will affect the actual future state. Without including the entire universe, trying to calculate the future for any one portion is limited.

Another problem is that to truly represent all of any significantly large space (anything greater in size than a pea) a horrendously large computer would have to hold all of the parameters.

But such limitations do not make the equation entirely useless. When investigating particle reactions, one need not build a multi-billion dollar particle collider, a multi-thousand dollar computer can do the job setting in someone’s office. And the good thing is that it is likely to be even more accurate than the collider without all of the potential dangerous of blowing up the user or the world.

But let’s say that such an equation was advanced to the point where it became practical to truly represent all of the activity on Earth with a high degree of accuracy, every atom, ever blade of grass, every human endeavor. What do you suppose would happen then?

With such a system, one could predict the consequences of any and every proposed change in laws or environment. One could get creative and predict the probable outcome of many proposed changes in environment, politics, social science, religion, or simple moving of these people from point A to point B. And all without having to go kill anyone to get it done. Danger would be minimized. Well, except for that one.

Man, throughout his history has constantly sought to be a god. Not merely a god, but THE GOD in absolute control of all things throughout the world and even the universe. There are a variety of reasons that keeps such a thing on his limited mind and heart, but there is no question that anything allowing him to become more of a true prophet, is something he would kill anyone and everyone to get his hands on. And with such a computer, he would have such a thing.

With a large enough computer and the Equation of Space, anything that is possible to be accomplished could be designed in serious detail. Any invention imaginable that was actually doable could be designed to a tee. Any and every cure for any illness could be fully designed along with the required means to deliver it. Of coarse, also any and every potential disease could also be designed. Every type of religion could be designed, every type of governance as well. Whoever had such a computer could answer any and every whim whether for good or bad.

So what would you do with such a device if it was in your hands? What goal would you seek for the human race?

Realize that what I have formed in RM, was already formed in perhaps a more crude way back in the 1950’s. Of course there have always been crude forms throughout history. And by being to close right without being exactly right, the more powerfully dangerous people get. So today, as such endeavors get closer and closer to being “close enough”, the threat to all humanity increases greatly depending on the sanity of the people running the program and making the choices as to what future will be constructed.

Many stories and films have been made with such a thought in mind. Many worries and many hopes have been dreamt. Television shows such as Dr. Who explores in fanciful form the types of concerns that are revealed by being able to see (or “travel”) into the past and future, “do this, and lets see what comes of what you just did”.

What I find most disturbing is not the potential power of such a device in the hands of the wrong people, but rather that there seems to be no “right people” who actually have a sane idea concerning what the future “should be”, what goal to design toward.

With a great deal of experience toying with such a device without actually implementing the proposed changes in the world, the lusts for power gets quailed into a far more moderate understanding, less passion and more compassion. The final question of “why bother to do anything” gets answered without passion presumptions or primitive yearnings. But how do you stop the lust to implement “close enough” before the more favorable designs have been explored?

Given the chance, the rationality in RM settles into the soul to allow the noise of lustful passions for control and domination to calm and fade. Man then has to decide for what purpose he is to actually do anything for sake of the future. His mind and heart becomes clear of his presumptions. The “Sin” within Man himself fades.

I said that the Equation for Space has already been developed in crude form and by some very influential people. But how do I know it is in “crude” form? I know by comparison of the fruit of such a “tree of knowledge”. What I see is exemplary of the “close enough” equation in the lustful wrong hands. What I see is insidious manipulation where none was needed, death, misery, and destruction where none was needed.

The RM model does not inspire to seek total domination of all reality. It displays the consequences of such attempts to be disastrous and eventually futile. It shows a more sane way of achieving sanity among homosapian; less death, misery, and destruction of what humanity is, more freedom and less struggle for all concerned.

A man once asked, “what do you do with 300 million insane people?” I now must ask, “what do you do with 6.5 billion of them?” Let them see the futures they propose? Will that bring sanity among them? Will that inspire true rationality in Man for perhaps the first time? “Close enough” is going to make him extinct. That part is already foreseeable.

Rational Metaphysics:Affectance Ontology

Rational Metaphysics is an ontology built upon Definitional Logic that explains existence thusly;

Physical existence is defined by the property of degree of affect upon degree of affect. Every point in space is a Potential-to-Affect, "PtA". Every PtA is affecting the PtA immediately surrounding it such as to alter the amount of potential at those points in space. But it is logically and physically impossible for those points to ever become homogeneously equal. Thus space is always changing its PtA throughout the entire universe.

That changing is called "Affectance" and is the substance of the physical universe of which everything in the universe is made. And is also the situation from which all true laws of physics are formed. The objects in space such as particles are clusters of that changing. And all properties of all materials and forces are derived by the consequences of such affectance.

To date, all of the observations of contemporary physics have been explained by Rational Metaphysics, "RM", without presuming any of the laws of classical or quantum physics. The foundation of RM is conceptual definitions followed by consequential logic and can be verified by empirical observation (Science).

Rational Metaphysics: From Void to Inertia, Mass, Momentum, Particles, and Gravity

RM:Affectance Ontology merely has the advantage of being unavoidably true (even if other ontologies are also true).

It is unavoidable that every point in space has the potential for affect. If it could have no such potential, it wouldn't be a point in space. Nothing could pass into or out of it. It would be a permanent discontinuity in the universe.

It is unavoidable that such points have different potentials to affect already within them, "PtA".
It is unavoidable that each of those points actualizes to affect/alter the potential values in their adjacent points.
It is unavoidable that such changing can never stabilize into equilibrium, "Affectance".
It is unavoidable that such changing has a maximum rate of changing that necessitates delays in the motion of the changing, "MCR".

It is unavoidable that such delays create a congestion of surrounding delays (mass).
It is unavoidable that such congestion is comparatively immobile (inertia) and migratory.
It is unavoidable that such congestion centers migrate toward each other (gravity).
It is unavoidable that once set in motion such congestion will continue in motion (momentum).


===============================================================

An ontology is an understanding of existence and is built upon predefined concepts proposed to be useful in the long run. Many varied ontologies can be built and be useful but can only be valued as true if they conform to the following stipulations;

A) Consistent within the ontology
B) Comprehensive in including details
C) Relevant to the needs at hand

The word "science" means "the knowing". Rational Metaphysics is a method involving Definitional Logic, Scientific Methodology, and Resolution Debating for constructing ontologies that are necessarily true and empirically and logically verified. One essential definition for any ontology is its definition for existence itself. Objects and principles are then defined such as to build a complete coherent understanding, an "ontology".

Using such a method, the following ontology was constructed to explain literally all physical existence and more importantly, why it must be what it is, including such things as why light travels at that particular speed, when Relativity and Quantum Physics won't work, and many unanswered questions concerning Science experiments.

Affectance ontology declares specific concept definitions that are simple and confined to their given definition. The ontology builds an understanding that has been called a "Unified Field Theory" and/or a "Grand Unified Theory" in that it utilizes merely one "field" concept and logically derives how all fields noted in current physics come about as aberrant effects of that one, the physical field of Affectance.

The principles involved apply to all fields of study, but most notably to; Physics, Psychology, Sociology, and Economics. The concept terms change for each field, but the principles are the same.

Although a great deal more detail can be explained, the Affectance Ontology fundamentals translated into common physics terms are as follows;

1.) By declared definition, Existence is that which has affect.

a) Detectable Empiricism - We decide that something exists only when we detect that something is having affect. All of our senses function based on the affect that something else has upon them. We use equipment to increase our sensory ability, but still if nothing affects the equipment in any way, we declare that nothing was there.
b) Common Usage - In reality, people are already using the word "exist" to mean this definition. They often never think about it, but in every case, the person really means that something having existence means that it has the potential to affect something; be seen, touched, smelled, or detected in some way even if not already detected.
c) Support from Science - Science concluded long ago that in reality all existing things have at least some minuscule affect on all other things through chains of events.
d) Rational Relevance - If something has truly no affect on anything whatsoever, we really don't care if it exists in any other sense. We can propose trillions of things that might exist but don't have affect. What would be the point? It would be a waste of mind time.

2.) An affect can only stem from the potential-to-affect, PtA (to alter or to change), from another separate or distinguished affect or affects (affects upon affects).
3.) Infinite homogeneity in a field of qualia cannot exist.

a) Absolute infinity cannot exist simply because by definition more can always be added.
b) Absolute zero is merely one divided by absolute infinity and thus cannot exist either.

4.) Due to the above, in all adjacent locations, the potential for affect cannot be infinitely identical.
5.) Because the potential to affect is not identical anywhere, actualization of affect takes place everywhere.
6.) As affect occurs between adjacent potentials, waves of affect propagate chaotically in both direction and magnitude creating an ocean of affectance noise.
7.) When multiple propagating waves of affect act upon the same point, their affects add.
8.) The rate of adding affects cannot be absolutely instantaneous.
9.) Due to that limit to the rate of adding affects, when affects merge in such a way as to require more than an infinite change rate, a maximum change rate point, MCR point, forms and as the participating affects continue to attempt adding at the same location, any additional followup propagating affects must wait for time to pass. - "Inertia".
10.) A clump of affectance noise forms around an MCR point of inertia due to delays being extended into the immediate surrounding area and is supported only by affectance entering the volume at an equal rate as leaving it, forming a stable "Particle" – a “standing wave of noise".
11.) When the ambient affectance density surrounding a particle increases, the particle cannot disseminate at the same rate as it is accumulating, so the particle grows to a maximum anentropic size.
12.) If the ambient affectance noise is denser on one side of a particle than the opposite, the center of the clump of noise shifts toward the more dense affectance field. The "particle" moves or migrates – "Particle Migration or Motion".
13.) When the center of the noise shifts, the affects that were headed in the direction of motion remain within the particle longer than others.
14.) Because the affectance within the clump of noise has more affectance heading in the direction of the particle, the particle continues heading in that direction even if the surrounding affectance is returned to an even ambiance – “Momentum”.

15.) Because each particle is building affectance and thus creating a higher density field of noise surrounding it, particles migrate toward each other while gaining momentum – “Gravity”.
16.) When particles approach each other, they share their noise causing the smaller to become slightly larger.
17.) When the clumps of noise get too close, they unite such as to form a volume that will sustain the maximum amount of noise containing more than one center of congested noise – the "Strong Force".
18.) When the affectance noise that forms a particle happen to be more substantially of increasing potential rather than decreasing, a "Positive Particle" is formed, a "particle with positive Electric Potential".
19.) Positive noise delays additional positive noise, adding to the positive noise in the area while local negative noise cancels the positive delays resulting in negative noise speeding through the area rather than being delayed – "Particle Charge Stability".
20.) When a charged particle is in the field of noise that is associated with a close opposite charged particle, the noise within the particle that happens to be headed toward the opposing particle is partially relieved of its inertial constraint and thus moves more freely toward the opposing particle, as though slipping down hill.
21.) As the inner noise of a charged particle moves more freely in one direction, it inherently shifts the center of the noise toward the opposing particle while also establishing momentum in that same direction – "Charged Particle Attraction".
22.) When a strongly negative wave of affectance noise encounters a strongly positive wave of affect, their merging requires that each wave change at a greater than infinite rate creating a point of inertia, MCR, and a delay in propagation for both.
23.) During the delay caused by the merging of strong opposite polarity, the particles associated with the waves continue to absorb noise of their own polarity and thus remain stable charged particles that continue to deliver strong waves.
24.) When a small negative particle approaches a larger positive particle, the smaller particle grows asymmetrically with its greater increasing noise closer to the larger positive particle.
25.) The stronger negative waves encountering the larger particle's large positive waves create many incidences of points of inertia that delay the entire smaller negative particle to the point of not allowing it to get closer to the positive before veering off to a side, orbiting the larger positive particle - "Electron Orbitals".
26.) As a wave of affect enters a region of greater noise, getting delayed more, the trailing edge of the wave begins to catch up to the leading edge compressing the entire wave -"Magnetic Wave".
27.) A compressed wave stores its energy potential within a smaller volume yielding a greater affect within the same propagating time frame as a non-compressed wave.
28.) Compressed waves passing into a charged particle have greater affect upon a particle causing the particle to shift more greatly into the oncoming wave – "Magnetic Induction".
29.) A circling charged particle creates a spiraling compressed ("magnetic") wave extending outward from the center of the circle - "Magnetic Field".
30.) The spiraling compression wave has a clockwise spiral above the flat plane of circulation and a counterclockwise spiral below.
31.) If two circling charged particles are close by, parallel, and circling in the same direction, the spirals from each causes the other to veer its orbit closer to the other – "Magnetic Attraction".
32.) If two circling charged particles are close by, parallel, and circling in opposite directions, they each cause the other to veer its orbit away from the other – "Magnetic Repulsion".
33.) Because the spirals extending from the circling charges have the opposite direction of spiral above from below, another circling charged particle will experience magnetic attraction on one side or magnetic repulsion on the other side – "North and South Magnetic Polarity".
Each of those fundamentals have an equivalent within each and every field of study.

 =================================================================

Or into German;

Grundlagen der Affektanz-Ontologie von JSS,

09.01.2014

Eine Ontologie ist ein Verständnis des Seins, das - auf vordefinierten Konzepten aufgebaut – von langfristigem Nutzen ist. Viele verschiedene Ontologien können aufgebaut werden und nützlich sein, können aber nur als wahr bewertet werden, wenn sie mit den folgenden Bedingungen übereinstimmen:

A) logisch-konsequent innerhalb der Ontologie
B) nachvollziehbar in allen inhaltlichen Details
C) relevant zu den vorliegenden Belangen

Die Rationale Metaphysik ist eine Methode, die die Definitionale Logik, wissenschaftliche Methodologie und Ergebnisdiskussion mit einbezieht, um Ontologien zu konstruieren, die unbedingt wahr und empirisch und logisch verifiziert sind. Eine wesentliche Definition jeder Ontologie ist ihre Definition der Existenz selbst. Objekte und Prinzipien werden dann definiert, um ein vollständiges, einheitliches Verständnis aufzubauen, eine Ontologie.

Unter Verwendung einer solchen Methode wurde die folgende Ontologie entwickelt, um buchstäblich jede physikalische Existenz zu erklären und – noch wichtiger – zu erklären, warum sie so sein muß wie sie ist und Dinge beinhaltet wie die Frage,warum Licht in bestimmter Geschwindigkeit wandert, wenn Relativitätstheorie und Quantenphysik versagen und viele Fragen bezüglich wissenschaftlicher Experimente unbeantwortet bleiben.

Die Affektanz-Ontologie stellt spezifische Begriffsdefinitionen fest, die einfach sind und auf die ihnen gegebenen Definitionen begrenzt bleiben. Die Ontologie baut das Verständnis einer ‚Vereinheitlichenden Feld-Theorie’ und/oder ‚Großen vereinheitlichenden Theorie’ auf, in der sie nur ein „Feld“ des Konzept verwendet und aus diesem logisch ableitet, wie alle Felder der gegenwärtigen Physik als abweichende Effekte dieses einen, dem physikalischen Feld der Affektanz, aufgefasst werden können.

Affektanz ist die Veränderung – Aktualisierung- des Affektpotentials.

Die aufgeführten Grundsätze können in allen Studienfeldern angewendet werden, besonders aber in der Physik, Psychologie, Soziologie und Ökonomie. Die Begriffe ändern sich in jedem Feld, die Grundsätze bleiben dieselben.

Ohne in Details zu gehen stellen sich die Grundlagen der Affektanz-Ontologie, übersetzt in die Terminologie der Physik, wie folgt dar:

1.) Per definitionem ist Existenz das, was Affekt hat.

a) Nachweisbare Empirie – wir entscheiden, dass etwas nur dann existiert, wenn es
Affekt hat. Alle unsere Sinnesfunktionen basieren darauf, dass etwas Anderes einen
Affekt auf sie ausübt. Wir benutzen Instrumente, um unsere sensorischen Fähigkeiten zu
steigern, doch wenn nichts die Instrumente affiziert, erklären wir, dass nichts da war.
b) Allgemeiner Gebrauch - In Wirklichkeit gebrauchen die Menschen das Wort
‚existieren’ bereits in der o.g. Definition. Sie denken oft nicht darüber nach, doch in
jedem Fall meinen sie, dass etwas, das existiert, das Potential hat, etwas zu affizieren:
gesehen zu werden, berührt, gerochen, irgendwie erkannt zu werden, selbst wenn es
nicht wirklich nachweisbar ist.
c) Unterstützung seitens der Wissenschaft – Die Wissenschaft hat schon vor langem
erkannt, dass in der Realität alle existierenden Dinge zumindest einen minimalen
Affekt auf alle anderen Dinge durch Ereignisketten ausüben.
d) Rationale Relevanz – wenn etwas wirklich keinen Affekt auf irgendetwas hat, ist
es uns gleichgültig, ob es in irgendeinem Sinne existiert. Wir können Billionen Dinge vorschlagen, die existieren könnten, aber keinen Affekt haben. Welchen Sinn hätte das? Es wäre geistige Zeitverschwendung.

2.) Ein Affekt kann nur von dem Affektpotential ( PtA= Potential-to-affect/ Potential zu affizieren, ändern, umzuwandeln) eines anderen einzelnen oder unterscheidbaren Affekts abgeleitet werden.

3.) Absolute Null-Differenz, unendliche Homogenität in jeglicher qualia kann nicht

existieren.

a) die absolute Unendlichkeit kann nicht existieren, weil, per definitionem, immer
mehr hinzugefügt werden kann.
b) die absolute Null ist lediglich 'Eins geteilt durch die absolute Unendlichkeit' und
und kann daher auch nicht existieren.

4.) Daraus folgt, dass an allen angrenzenden Orten das Affektpotential (PtA) nicht

unendlich identisch sein kann.

5.) Weil das Affektpotential nirgendwo identisch ist, findet überall eine Affektaktualisierung

statt.

6.) Da der Affekt zwischen aneinandergrenzenden Potentialen auftritt, breiten sich Affekt-

wellen chaotisch in Richtung und Ausmaß (Größe) aus.

7.) Wenn mehrere sich ausbreitenden Affektwellen auf denselben Punkt wirken, werden

ihre Affekte addiert .

8.) Die erforderliche Zeit, in der Affekte sich addieren, kann nicht absolut Null sein.

9.) Wegen der begrenzten Rate hinzugefügter Affekte, wenn Affekte sich so vermischen,

dass mehr erforderlich ist als eine unendliche Veränderungsrate, streben die Affekte

kontinuierlich danach, sich am selben Ort zusammenzufügen, während jeder weitere

sich ausbreitende Affekt einige Zeit darauf warten muß, passieren zu können

= „Trägheit“ (Inertia)

10.) Durch ausgedehnte Verzögerungen bildet sich um einen Punkt der Trägheit ein

Affektanz- Lärmhaufen (clump), nur getragen von Affektanz, die das Volumen zu

gleicher Rate verlässt wie betritt und ein stabiles „Partikel“, – eine „stehende Welle“

von Lärm, formt.

11.) Wenn sich die Affektanz-Dichte in der Umgebung eines Partikels erhöht, kann sich das

Partikel nicht in der selben Rate ausbreiten wie es akkumuliert, daher wächst das

Partikel.

12.) Wenn der das Partikel umgebende Affektanz-Lärm an einer Seite des Partikels dichter

als an seiner gegenüberliegenden ist, verschiebt sich das Zentrum des Lärmhaufens

(clump) hin zu dem dichteren Affektanzfeld. Das ‚Partikel’ bewegt oder verlagert sich.

„Partikelbewegung“.

13.) Wenn sich das Zentrum des Lärms verschiebt, verbleiben die Affekte, die

innerhalb des Lärm-Partikels in die Richtung der Bewegung streben, länger in dem

Partikel als andere Affekte.

14.) Da die Affektanz innerhalb eines Lärmhaufens mehr Affektanz hat, die in die selbe

Richtung wie das Partikel strebt, strebt das Partikel immer weiter in die von ihm

vorher bereits eingeschlagene Richtung, sogar dann, wenn die es umgebende

Affektanz zu einem ausgeglichenen Milieu zurückgekehrt ist, - „Momentum“

15.) Da jedes Partikel Affektanz in sich konzentriert und somit um es herum ein Lärmfeld

mit höherer Dichte aufbaut, wandern die Partikel aufeinander zu und gewinnen

Momentum - „Gravitation“

16.) Wenn sich Partikel aufeinander zubewegen, teilen sie ihren Lärm , was verursacht, dass

die kleineren etwas größer werden.

17.) Wenn die Lärmhaufen zu dicht aufeinandertreffen, vereinigen sie sich, um so ein

Volumen zu bilden, das die maximale Höhe an Lärm erhält und mehr als ein Zentrum

verdichteten Lärms beinhaltet – die „starke Kraft“.

18.) Wenn die Wellen des Affektanz-Lärms, der ein Partikel bildet, im Wesentlichen

Wellen mit ansteigendem statt absteigendem Potential sind, wird ein „Positives

Elektrisches Potential“ aufgebaut.

19.) Positiver Lärm hemmt zusätzlichen positiven Lärm daran, sich dem positiven

Lärm des Gebietes anzuschließen, während der lokale negative Lärm die positiven

Hemmungen aufhebt, was zu negativen Wellen führt, die nicht verzögert, sondern

schnell durch das Gebiet strömen. – „Ladungsstabilität des Partikels“

20.) Wenn sich ein geladenes Partikel in dem Lärmfeld befindet, das ein nahes,gegensätz-

lich geladenes Partikel aufbaut, werden die Wellen innerhalb des Partikels, die zu

dem gegensätzlichen Partikel hinstreben, teilweise von ihren hemmenden (trägen)

Bedingungen befreit und bewegen sich daher ungehinderter auf das gegensätzliche

Partikel zu.

21.) Weil sich die inneren Wellen eines geladenen Partikels freier in eine Richtung

bewegen können, verschieben sie das Lärmzentrum zu dem gegensätzlichen

Partikel hin, während gleichzeitig Momentum in derselben Richtung hergestellt

Wird.- „Anziehung des geladenen Partikels“.

22.) Wenn eine starke negative Welle auf eine starke positive Welle trifft, erfordert ihre

Vereinigung, dass jede Welle zu einer größer als unendlichen Rate verändert wird,

um einen Punkt der Trägheit zu bilden, eine Verzögerung in der Ausbreitung

23.) Während der durch das Vermischen gegensätzlicher Polaritäten verursachten

Verzögerung, absorbieren die Partikel, die mit den starken Wellen verbunden sind,

kontinuierlich Wellen ihrer eigenen Polarität und bleiben daher stabil geladene

Partikel, die kontinuierlich starke Wellen liefern.

24.) Wenn sich ein kleines, negatives Partikel einem größeren, positiven Partikel annähert, 
wächst das kleinere Partikel asymmetrisch mit seinem stärker zunehmenden Geräusch näher 
an das größere, positive Partikel heran.

25.) Die stärkeren negativen Wellen, die auf große positive Wellen des größeren

Partikels treffen, erzeugen das Auftreten vieler Trägheits-Punkte, die das ganze,

kleinere, negativ geladene Partikel hemmen, sich dem Positiven zu nähern, indem

es zu einer Seite abdrehen und das größere, positive Partikel umkreisen muß. –

„Elektroschwache Kraft“.

26.) Da eine Affektwelle, die in eine Region größeren Lärms eintritt, verzögert

wird, beginnt das Endstück der Welle zum Wellenanfang aufzuschließen; somit

wird die gesamte Welle komprimiert,

27.) Eine komprimierte Welle lagert ihr Energiepotential innerhalb eines kleineren

Volumens, was im selben propagierten Zeitrahmen einen größeren Affekt als

bei einer nicht-komprimierten Welle ergibt.

28.) Komprimierte Wellen, die in ein geladenes Partikel treffen, haben größeren Affekt auf

ein Partikel, was bewirkt, dass sich das Partikel stärker zu der sich ihm nähernden

Welle hin verschiebt – „Magnetische Induktion“.

29.) Ein kreisendes geladenes Partikel bildet eine spiralig komprimierte

(„magnetische“) Welle, die sich vom Zentrum des Kreises nach Außen hin

erweitert.

30.) Wenn die spiralig komprimierte Welle eine sich im Uhrzeigersinn windende

Spirale über dem flachen Zirkulationsfeld hat, windet sich die Spirale darunter

gegen den Uhrzeigersinn.

31.) Wenn zwei kreisende geladene Partikel, nahe und parallel zuenander bewegend,

in die selbe Richtung kreisen, verursachen die Spiralen beider (Partikel),

dass sich die Kreisbahn des einen näher zu dem anderen hindreht.„Magnetische

Anziehung“

32.) Wenn zwei kreisende geladene Partikel, parallel und nahe beieinander bewegend,

in entgegengesetzte Richtungen kreisen, verursachen sie (die Spiralen), dass

die Kreisbahn des einen sich vom anderen wegdreht. –„Magnetische Abstoßung“

33.) Weil die Spiralen, die sich von den kreisenden geladenen Partikeln aus erstrecken, oben

und unten entgegengesetzte Bewegungsrichtungen haben, wird ein anderes kreisendes

geladenes Partikel magnetische Anziehung an der einen Seite oder magnetische

Abstoßung an der anderen Seite erfahren. – Nord-und Südmagnetische

Polarität“.

Jeder dieser Grundsätze hat ein Äquivalent innerhalb jedes einzelnen Studienbereichs.

==================================================================

A few minor revelations from all of this;

) Gravity is a migration of clumps of noise toward each other, not by "force from a distance". There is no "pulling".
) There is no "gravity carrier particle" other than just a mass particle.
) There is no absolute vacuum in space.
) Negative is opposite to positive, but not "equal". Negative means "closer to zero than the ambient".
) Space is infinite in size.
) There is no homogeneity of affectance in space therefore "dark matter/energy" will naturally form.
) Light travels slower through gravity/mass/denser affectance fields.
) There no truly rigid bodies.
) Particles can slightly alter their size.
) Gravity can be neutralized by balancing the gradient of affectance noise.
) When a large particle moves, the ambient field around it largely moves with it.
) The motion of an ambient field affects the speed of light within that field.
) Anti-gravity can be formed by creating short affectance pulses causing a particle to shift closer to the source.
) All "forces in nature/physics" are aberrant effects of shifting EMR noise.
) When particles merge, they become a single particle sharing both their affectance and their "charge".
) When a polyparticle is divided, the pieces reform into stable particles.
) There is no "gluon" particle. The extra energy noted by Science is the extra affectance amidst the merging.
) The "magnetic field" is merely a compressed "electric field".
) Deflected particles form what could be called "phantom photons" that do not deflect (explaining the mysterious Mach-Zehnder experiment).
) Fast motion within an isolated container in space can be detected from a significant distance.

) Nothing is possible until something is impossible.
) Relativity is only relative.
) The universe is not quantized, and particles are.
) The universe had no beginning nor can it have an end.
) Entropy does not rule the universe.
) Anentropy occurs due to persistently momentous effort/affecting.
) Anentropy is limited in spatial volume (governments can get too large).
) Each instance of anentropy requires an ambience of entropy of its own type (governments require the ambience of the ungoverned).
) Mass is formed of the positive AND the negative.
) Harmony is established by the location and motion of the ambient entropy.
) Messages travel slower through noise.
) There is in fact, a "God formula" or "GUT" that explains truly all existence.
) Disease, Suffering, and Death are NOT required for anentropic life.
) Alteration of the Homosapian DNA is NOT required.

==================================================================

The following are some pictorials associated with the above concepts;

The 6 Dimensions of Spacetime

Not that physics isn't already too complicated, but a few years ago while studying time, I realized something; Time has 3 dimensions.

It was once thought that time was merely a constant, one dimensional measurement. It was eventually discovered that the measurement of time alters with relative velocity, hence "time is relative". But it was strange to me that no one seemed to have realized that velocity is a vector, a one dimensional vector. When something travels very fast relative to something else, the time measured will be dependent upon that speed. But the object is only traveling in one dimension. And the time in that dimension will no doubt be measured as different than if it were not moving. But the object is not moving in the other 2 dimensions and thus the time relating to those dimensions cannot change.

In effect, if one were to consider the idea of moving so fast as to reverse time, one would have to realize that time would only be reversed for the one dimension in which the object was traveling. The other 2 dimensions are not affected. If 3 idealized 2-dimensional clocks were on board orthogonally situated, only one would have any reason to flow backwards or even slow down.

The distinction can perhaps be more easily seen if it is presumed that two ships were screaming across space at near light speed. To the outside observer, both ships would seemed to have slower clocks, they would both age less. But between the two ships, if they were traveling parallel, there would be no difference in the clocks or aging between the ships. But what if they were not traveling parallel? What if the two ships were approaching each other at near light speed while also vectoring away from the outside observer at near light speed?

To the outside observer, the two ships are not traveling at the same velocity even though they are traveling at the same speed (different vector). And to each ship, the outside observer is traveling in a different direction from what the other would report. A problem arises when trying to calculate the aging factor, the "time dilation". As far as each ship is concerned, both the outside observer and the other ship are traveling at the same speed and thus should have the same aging involved. But to the outside observer, both of the ships should have the same aging involved as each other.

Of course, they can't all be right. Unless the time-vectors involved are considered, the time dilation factor will lead to a conundrum/paradox.

The bottom line is that time must be considered as a 3-dimensional measurement. Each orthogonally vectored dimension has its own time dimension.

Thus Spacetime is actually a 6 dimensional entity (not 4). And for a ship to travel so fast as to stop time or reverse time, it would actually have to travel in all 3 directions simultaneously. I think they call that "Poof".

So when you see anything go "poof", perhaps it merely poofed back in time.

Life ≡

Utilizing the Black Box model and method one can formalize a set of components necessary for any life. Life, unlike other forms of particulate existence assumes purpose and intent, specifically the purpose of sustaining itself. Other existences must also maintain themselves in order to exist, but unlike life, they do not use such complex means to obtain the materials required to sustain the harmony of their functioning, their "Self-Harmony".

Life ≡ Siau

_[Power Input]_S. Spirit; Drive/Effort/Energy
_[Output]_____I. Influence; motor/muscle/speech
_[Input]______A. Awareness; senses; sight/sound/touch/smell/taste/movement
_[Function]___U. Understanding; response algorithms; instincts, emotions, cognition

Life must endeavor to obtain, repair, or replace each of those components in order to sustain its ability to survive. Natural life generally endeavors to slightly enhance each of them. Strategic life, goes all out to empower each of them as far as it can manage; Nietzschean "Will-to-Power".

Deciding which aspect to attend to, how much, and in what order is actually a complex algorithm. Most life manages the decisions merely due to being so limited in resources as to make the decisions simple; eat, learn, think, and influence when their is opportunity. If given too many resources, homosapian can strive to derive a formal process so as to keep the optimum balance, but generally, he merely grabs the first thing available with an emphasis on increasing influence.

The value in every life is founded upon maintaining those four elements of life in optimum balance. Life grows due to those four elements being challenged as insufficient. Homosapian gets so complex as to utilize the efforts of other lives who are attempting the same thing such as to form societies with a variety of structures. But each and every effort he makes is merely to enhance those four elements to the point of certain immutable balanced harmony, even before he knew that is what he was doing.

Homosapian doesn't learn quickly, especially when some have caught onto the idea of enhancing their own survival by disabling those elements in all of the others. The resulting confusion takes much, much longer to work out than the comparatively simple design and original intent.

That which enhances each component of Life is of positive value.
That which disrupts each component of Life is of negative value.

At any one moment, the particular value assignment for each component and for each life is a function of the balance of the others and the situation in which the whole is having to deal. The value of the second helping of cake is almost always less than the first.

------------------------------------------------

No rational effort can be made without having a goal or purpose in mind. Purpose is what distinguishes mere logic from rationality.

Now when it comes to that "highest goal", the pinnacle of passion which then gives priority to all other desires, the issue is merely defining the maximum possible survival state;

The Purpose == Eternal Joy

That assignment might seem a bit common and also impossible, but not only is it possible, but anything less is actually irrational. To seek that goal, ALL of the components of life must be enhanced to their fullest along with a great deal of social growth as surrounding harmonious support. There must be harmony both inside and out.

Joy is the inner perception of progress, accurate or not. Of course inaccurate perception of progress defeats the actual goal of eternal survival. So inner deception is not usually a good direction to take as it compromises the outer ability to properly respond to opportunities and threats. Entertainment is what we call our means for accomplishing that inner perception of progress even though no actual progress is being made. At times though, such artificial injections of joy from entertainment are very helpful so as to communicate to the inner mind that there is no current need to worry. The functioning of the mind gets pretty complex all by itself.

The strive for eternal life ensures that a stagnate state is never reached which would stabilize weakness and cause complacency.

So by simply aiming ones life toward that highest possible goal, all of the needs of survival and enjoyment of life are properly placed and prioritized. All else being equal, in an evolutionary sense, those who actually have maintained such a goal generation after generation will out survive those who sought for anything else.

In addition, the tendency to attempt domination of others gets a natural governor or regulator built into the entire modality. Any society that forms is merely a reflection of the same components previously mentioned with all of the same concerns. When the people within the society perceive progress, they become the joy of the life defined by the society itself.

Still in addition to that, as it turns out, the only means to actually reach that goal of eternal joy is by means of the maximum affordable (the optimum) momentum of life. That momentum requires the harmony of its components if it is to get maximum performance. When the components within harmonize, progress increases substantially as well as the inner perception of it, the actual joy sensed by the life.

So the end result is that not only is each and every life within the society encouraged to be finely harmonized within itself and sensing the joy of living, but the entire populous is encouraged, not into conflict, but into the maximum fastest paced harmony possible. Any other society attempting to interfere would be about like dropping a match into a black hole - not even a poof.

The Black Box

In engineering, there is a common entity referred to as "a black box". The black box is an often approximated and always generalized model of a chosen entity. It is composed of 3 fundamental notions;

1) Inputs (S)
2) Inner functioning (I)
3) Outputs (B)

Every entity that can be identified is identified by every mind as a black box wherein the inner functioning is seldom known, often speculated, but usually irrelevant. In electronic circuit design for example, the engineer very often obtains an integrated circuit, IC. The IC is quite literally and physically a small black plastic box with conducting pins sticking out of it. The engineer knows that any particular IC uses some of its pins for input signals and some for output responses. He knows that if he raises the voltage on certain pins, other specific pins will respond by either raising or lowering their voltage in accord with the internal functioning. He most often doesn't care what is actually within the box, how it works or why.

In reality, every mind, no matter how small, is always "thinking" in terms of black boxes. Every object identified whether given a label or not, is inherently categorized as an entity with an expected behavior relating to its stimuli.

Given stimuli "S" and an internal functioning of "I", a behavior of "B" is expected.

B = F{S,I}
Behavior = a Function of Stimuli and Internal responses.
Or
"I choose my Behavior in response to my Situation/Stimuli"

By noting in general terms those 3 qualities, every mind categorizing every object of thought, every word, every sentence, every construct, every action, and every object, endeavors to resolve what behavior to enact. The mind simply can't function without such an inherent model.

When deriving its chosen ontological view of its surroundings, the mind has no alternative but to classify subsets of its surroundings into such black box models commonly referred to as entities, objects, and actions.

Even when any person views another person, to merely identify the person, the mind must utilize the black box concept;

"Person A is that entity which behaves in B manner when given S stimuli."

All psychological categorizing of behavior is codified by such a scheme. All fields of Science utilize the black box concept so as to identify and predict behaviors within each field of study. Of course, people often don't appreciate being thought of as a "mere predictable black box", but the truth is that every mind has no choice but to use such a model if it is to think at all. Unfortunately, societal engineering, requiring generalizing designs, requires generalizing black box categories for all people from which political strategies, psychological media, economic designs are formed. A governing body is itself a black box assigning black box generalizations, rules, and reactions.

Even Life itself is modeled by every mind as "this general entity that generally behaves in this general way when given a general type of stimulation from a general type of situation and I don't know or often care how it works inside."

Every General that shuffles his small models of tanks, planes, and battalions around on his map, every religion or government in dictating its truths, and every philosopher constructing his world-view or perspective, instinctively, naturally, and necessarily assembles his ontology by choosing the black boxes within; the entities that regardless of internal method "I", always behave in "B" manner, given "S" stimuli.

Achieving Faster than Light Travel

I have often stated that absolutely nothing can ever travel faster than what we refer to as "the speed of light". But just as a minor interesting note, there are actually 2 exceptions.

My meta-particle tracking program monitors for anything with gimbal velocities and anything traveling faster than light, primarily to help hunt down any errors in the program. Recently, I found it triggering yet I could find no error in the program. I investigated the equations over and over and was a bit puzzled as to how a particular particle could have a velocity greater than the max possible.

Well, as it turned out, a bit of a philosophical thought came to mind and revealed what was happening.

A particle's location is defined by its center. By tracking its center, one knows at what velocity it is traveling. But in the case of particles, especially particles that are just beginning to form, an interesting effect takes place.

If a particulate is already traveling close to the speed of light, a common occurrence, and it runs up on a similar particulate running slightly slower, you would think the end velocity would merely be an average of the two. And it is.. sortta. But what happens is that the two particulates merge into a single particle and guess what happens to the center of the first? Quite suddenly the center of the "particle" went from position A to position B (a particulate width distance away) almost instantaneously.

Of course the reason was simply that the particulate was still in a growth stage and as it grows, its center can outrun all of its constituents. Technically speaking, that really is the same as traveling faster than light. So it can be legitimately stated that a growing particle can, for a short time at least, travel faster than light. Of course, that time is in the range of fractional pico seconds, but still, it is an interesting note.

Then it occurred to me that every particle is actually growing and shirking at the same rate all the time and is thus stable. But what if I were to cause it to grow faster on one side and shrink faster on the opposite side? Again, as it turns out, for short times, that can actually happen and no doubt in space, it does happen.

The requirements for causing such an event involves a charge gradient which of course cannot continue for very long, but it could lead to much greater durations of exceeding the speed of light for non-growing particles than the growing particles mentioned before. And an ideal place to find such a naturally occurring situation would be the famed black hole. I can safely say, that some of the particles speeding into a black hole, especially one with a significant charge field, will in fact rush to their demise even faster than the light rushing along side of them. For how long that might be, I couldn't venture a guess.

The shifting center would not actually add to the momentum of the particle, so no common energy equation theories get violated. The particle merely shows up at the destination and its demise before its photon partner.

..just an interesting observation.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Oh Hell..

Very shortly after posting that OP, it dawned on me how one could theoretically keep a particle experiencing a positive gradient and thus continue to travel faster than light. It would be extremely difficult to arrange, but theoretically possible.

Let's say you had an electron orbiting its nucleus and had the technical means to increase the charge (or mass) field in front of the electron while reducing it behind the electron. By arranging to do that sequentially, much like a stepper motor or an alternator, the field changing constituents would not need travel or change faster than light for the particle to never be able to catch up to the changing field in front of it. As the particle passes, the field in each location would be reduced back to a lower level.

The electron would be in a state of constantly growing more in front and shirking behind and thus its center would be shifting forward faster than its constituent mass could possibly travel. For as long as the device was operational and kept sync with the orbiting electron, the electron would achieve and maintain faster than light travel.

I really hate it when I outwit my own proclamations of impossibility.. sigh

_______________________________________________________________________________

Continuing even further...

Again theoretically, a linear accelerator and relay could be arranged such that a particle could carry the information of an event in a straight line.

As the particle either traveled linearly itself, or relayed its effect to other particles inline, even though its own charge field could not grow faster than light such as to have affect as it passed, it could reach the end of a line and begin having its field effect upon the terminal detecting device before a photon had a chance to get to the detector.

Information traveling faster than light... gees.. it must be bad news.