James
S. Saint wrote:Because when I am explaining, I have
to use the more common words and notions of the day. One can't learn to speak
a language, especially on the internet, if the person explaining it doesn't ever
use any words familiar to the one listening. Even if a unicorn doesn't exist,
one has to used the concept in order to propose that it doesn't. Thus I say, »[what
we call] a negative charged particle is merely a concentration of
lower affectance than the ambient«. And that ALL of the things that we CALL
»negative« are in reality merely lesser than more positive things,
not an opposite of positive things except in reference to an average, chosen standard,
or expectation. Reality itself has no chosen standard or expectation or even awareness
of any average. Averages are human mental constructs, as are standards and expectations.
Physical reality has no such things. And thus physical reality actually has no
negative of anything.It is similar to the notion of »force«.
Physical reality has no such thing as a force. A force is merely a perception
of the mind, an assumption. The physical reality is actually merely migrating
such as to change its locations around. Nothing is actually pulling or pushing,
ever. But in order to explain that to those who believe in forces, I have to use
the notion of »force«, the pulling and pushing that doesn't actually
exist. **
AO
accepts the mainstream definition of charge, but does not accept the
mainstream definition of positive and negative. The mainstream
definition of wave is accepted by AO, but partly not the mainstream
definition of particle. What you call
affectance is nearly that what the mainstream physicists call attraction,
and that is especially true for the electromagnetic attraction.Again:
Arminius wrote:»The interim
balance sheets are one of more examples which show that in this thread even
three points ov view are included (and please look also at the results!):
Will
machines completely replace all human beings?
** ** | | Yes
(by trend) | No
(by trend) | Abstention | Sum: | 3 | 8 | 3 | Sum: | 4 | 8 | 9 | Sum: | 6 | 11 | 9 | Sum: | 5 | 11 | 9 | Sum: | 6 | 12 | 11 | | Ø
: | 4.8 | 10 | 8.2 | | | 20,87% | 43,48% | 35,65% |
For
comparasion: 1st interim balance sheet (**|**), 2nd
interim balance sheet (**|**), 3rd
interim balance sheet (**|**), 4th
interim balance sheet (**|**), 5th
interim balance sheet (**|**).These
results do not necessarily speak for the yes-sayers, do they? And
before the beginning I knew that the yes-sayers are the fewest.«
** **
4.8 100 / 23% = 20,86956522% 10 100 / 23%
= 43,47826087% 8.2 100 / 23% = 35,65217391% ------------------------------------ 23
100% / 23 = 100%
If we add the middle column (43.48%) and the right column
(35.65%), then we get as a result 79.13%. That are the not-yes-sayers. But
if we add the left column (20.87%) and the right column (35.65%), then we get
as a result 56.52%. That are the not-no-sayers.Relating
to the thread question, the realtionship of the yes-sayers
(20.87%) to the not-yes-sayers (79.13%) is really interesting:According
to the Pareto principle (also known as the 8020 rule, the law of
the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) 20% of the population own
80% of the land, 20% of the pea pods contain 80% of the peas, 20% of all clients
cause 80% of all sales, 20% of all websites are the goal of 80% of all weblinks,
... and so on. This 8020 rule is roughly followed by a power law distribution
(also known as a Pareto distribution) for a particular set of parameters, and
many natural phenomena have been shown empirically to exhibit such a distribution.Relating
to the thread question, it could be interesting, if the Pareto principle applied
also to the yes-sayers (20.87%) and not-yes-sayers
(79.13%), as I already said (**|**).James
S. Saint wrote:It isn't a matter of accepting their
definitions for their words, but rather what their definitions mean. **
It
is always the meaning because accept phonemes all linguistic forms (morphemes,
lexemes/logemes [simiar to words], syntactemes, textemes, and even languages themselvses)
have a meaning. So, the definitions of the physicists also mean what their definitions
say. If (for example) a definition says that charge
is electric potential, then it means that charge is electric potential.
I guess, you mean a kind of extended meaning.James
S. Saint wrote:What they mean by »charge«
is electric-potential. »Potential« means exactly what it is. The »Potential-to-Affect«,
PtA, uses the word »potential« exactly as they do. They don't use
»charge« to mean anything different than that. So I have no need for
a change of definition because RM:AO has a »potential« and thus a
»charge«, although I only use the word »charge« when referring
to commonly understood things like the charge of an electron. **
Yes,
llike I said:Arminius wrote:AO accepts
the mainstream definition of »charge« .... **
**
Have
you not read it?James S. Saint wrote:And
in the case of positive and negative, the only thing that I change is that such
words can only reference an average, not an absolute. **
Yes,
llike I said:Arminius wrote:AO accepts
the mainstream definition of »charge«, but does not accept the mainstream
definition of »positive« and »negative«. **
**
Have
you not read it?James S. Saint wrote:They
couldn't grasp the idea that space isn't empty. **
They
say that the density of the universe is about 10^-31 g/cm³ (estimated).James
S. Saint wrote: I am merely pointing out that space
is not »zero« and electrons are lower than space; lower »energy«,
»potential«, »PtA«, and/or »Affectance«. And
neither are negative things »equal«, even though they have opposite
direction of potential/charge relative to the ambient.
So
electrons are lower than space means that electrons have »lower
energy«, »potential«, »PTA«, and/or »affectance«
than space; but what is your definition of space then? James
S. Saint wrote:Today, they know that space is not as
empty as they had thought .... **
Yes,
llike I said: They estimate that the density of the universe is about 10^-31 g/cm³
(see above).James S. Saint wrote:Today,
they know that space is not as empty as they had thought, but the idea of an electron
being a higher potential-energy thing still lingers. Ambient space is the »average«
that an electron is lower than, and thus properly negative relative to that average.
**
Like
I said:Arminius wrote:AO ... does
not accept the mainstream definition of »positive« and »negative«.
** **
Have
you not read it?James S. Saint wrote:Affectance
comes much closer to being their »mass field« or »energy field«.
**
But
affectance is a word, related to affect, ,affected,
affection, ... and so on. So if I say X has more affectance
than X, and Y is affected by X, I can also say: X has more (force
of) attractance than X, and Y is attracted by X. James,
I know that you sometimes are using other words than the common physicists; but
you should allow some comparisons because there are some analogies.James
S. Saint wrote:And there is no »attraction«
in RM:AO, nor »repulsion«. Things merely migrate toward or away from
other things due to their constant reforming of themselves based upon the field
strength immediately around them. They feel no pulling or pushing. They rebuild
themselves a little closer or further away because the field was a little stronger
closer or further away. In common physics, a particle is a »solid mass«.
In RM:AO a particle is a cluster of ultra-fine EMR noise busily buzzing about
feeding off of the non-zero space all around it. **
So,
if we used some words of the common physicists and bring them into RM:AO, we could
say: Affectance is a electromagnetic radiation of a electromagnetic field,
not a force. Existence is that which has affect. Could
you agree with that?Pandora
wrote:People tend to see what they want to see. There
is a video currently circulating of "dog saving the fish". Notice that
most viewers see it as evidence of dog's awareness and altruism: **However,
as was also pointed out, the dog is acting purely out of instinct. It is trying
to bury the fish, not save it. Here's the same behavior observed in other
circumstances: **
**Is
this altruism?: **
No.Altruism
refers merely to closed relatives (kinship), perhaps also to other relatives,
and to closed friends. Apart from that, the nature is full of violence,
marked by the will to power: **
**
**
**
**
**The
wildest market is the freest market.James
S. Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:»The
definitions of physicists also mean what their definitions say.«
** **
That
is not always the case because many of their words have become ambiguous, such
as when they say that a photon has zero »mass«, they now only mean
that it has zero »rest mass« (because it never rests). They declared
that the photon could have no mass at all because Relativity implies that if it
had any mass at all and traveled at the speed of light, that mass would become
infinite. Eventually they discovered that a photon does have mass. So they distinguished
the momentum for of mass from the gravity form of mass by calling the latter,
»rest mass« (else their Relativity theory would be exposed as wrong).
**
They
say, a photon has no mass but a rest mass - which is in fact a funny
statement.James S. Saint wrote:So in RM:AO,
when I say »mass«, I am referring to the amount or degree of affectance.
A photon is merely a bunch of affectance that is all traveling in the same direction.
Because it is all traveling in the same direction, it stays together (mostly).
When all of the affectance within a bunch or cluster is traveling the same direction,
it cannot form a stable particle because it is out running any accumulating or
gathering of affectance, from surrounding space, that would otherwise take place
such as to form a particle, an actual neutrino. If you could magically stop a
photon from moving without it dissipating, it would form a neutrino particle because
the surrounding affectance would accumulate into it, making it a cluster of the
more common random noisy affectance (internally moving in all directions).
**
Because
it is out running any accumulating or gathering of affectance, from surrounding
space, that would otherwise take place such as to form a particle, an actual neutrino?
Can you explain that a bit more, especially out running?Stop
a photon from moving without it dissipating, it would form a neutrino particle?
Can you explain that a bit more, especially dissipating?James
S. Saint wrote:Also when they use the word »particle«,
they now often refer to something that is in no sense a particle, such as a »gluon«.
Quarks are »quazi-particles« and formed merely from a puffed up neutrino
with a confused charge field allowing for the formation of both neutral and charged
polyparticles (one particle made of many). A quark is not a stable particle in
its own right. It cannot exist in free space and would reduce to being merely
a neutrino if it didn't entirely dissipate.The point is that they have
altered their words' meanings to fit their theory's needs such that at times,
their words do not mean what they mean at other times, nor what they originally
meant. RM:AO is all about affects and since all of their words are referring
to some kind of affect, everything they talk about relates back to affectance.
The issue is merely which form and degree of affect; flowing, random, clustered,
dense, or whatever. It is all the same »affectance« merely in varied
forms and concentrations. They gave names to some of the forms, but then altered
the names they gave, so their words are not exactly coherent any more (much like
Hinduism). **
Mainstream
physics is not as closed as a metaphysical ontology (for example: RM:AO).James
S. Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:»So
electrons are lower than space means that electrons have 'lower
energy', 'potential', 'PTA', and/or 'affectance' than space; but what is
your definition of space then?« **
**
Space
is the field of relatively lower concentration of affectance, a cloud so then
that you cannot see it. Within that cloud of affectance, any concentration becomes
noticeable as either a »mass« or a »radiation« depending
on how fast it is moving within the surrounding cloud. If all things became un-concentrated,
there would be nothing but space made of randomly flowing affectance, unnoticeable,
seemingly empty.An »object« (any and every object) is merely
a higher concentration of the affectance of space.There are only two
forms of physical existence; 1) Potential (the situation that brings change,
involving locations of concentrations: »PtA«) 2) Changing (the
potential altering itself into new concentrations and locations: »Affectance«)
**
Two
pre-conditions: space and time.James S. Saint wrote:Science
and religious metaphysics have given very many names to the variety of forms of
those. Many of the names have become conflated, confused, ambiguous, and incoherent.
All that I can do is try to iron out some of what they were referring to with
the names they used. When questioning any of the meanings of their words and names,
one is merely asking »To what form of affectance is this word referring?«In
Christianity, those exact same two are named; 1) God, the father of creation 2)
CreationBut in using Christian words, would you have ever guessed what
they were actually talking about? **
Yes.
But not in any case.James S. Saint wrote: Christian
followers guess it wrongly every day and in a variety of ways (as do followers
in all of the religions, including secular science).A black-hole is the
»Real God's« actual Hell, not merely »hellish« or »like
hell«, but the actual physically real Hell, a spot of maximally concentrated
chaos, absolutely no discernible order, within the universe of affectance. But
in Jewish wording, it would be the »Abyss« wherein all order and form
are totally randomized.Unfortunately Christianity (and others) associated
»Heaven« with absolute peace and order, which can only exist conceptually.
Physically Heaven can only be partially emulated by relative peace. A far more
permanent Heaven requires a high degree of harmonic motion of the separate small
concentrations of noisy chaos (»particles«, »thoughts«,
»groups«, whatever). The harmonic motion defends the spot of heaven
from chaotic interference via its momentum to form a large spot of anentropy within
which people can live: SAM.The religions and science are talking about
the same things, merely applying words differently to different forms and degrees.
They are ALL talking about Potential and Affectance in their varied forms.
Arminius
wrote:»But affectance is a word, related
to affect, ,affected, affection, ... and so
on. So if I say X has more affectance than Y, and Y is affected by X,
I can also say: X has more (force of) attractance than X, and Y is attracted
by X.« ** **
Affectance
has nothing to do with »attraction« except as an aberrant appearance.
Locations of concentrated affectance tend to migrate toward each other, unless
in their own average potential they are both either above or below the ambient.
concentrations of similar potential affectance will migrate away from each other
for the exact same reason that religions and governments spread into different
lands. They each have similar potential, but each has a different center of concentration,
a different focus of concern.Arminius wrote:»James,
I know that you sometimes are using other words than the common physicists; but
you should allow some comparisons because there are some analogies.« **
**
I
DO allow their use and I am making those comparisons. That is why I am trying
to clarify to what degree they apply and when they can be properly used.
**
Right,
to clarify! |