Philosophy Now Forum

The problem, Leo, is that we were discussing mass and the ability to divide it infinitely when you stated that it cannot be done because of a math issue (as Phil has pointed out). You made the statement as defense for why there must be a minimum size.

I have shown that the logic doesn't hold up for your hypothesis. Your only other reason for holding to the notion is that it is the current popular belief. And I already forewarned you that in every case throughout the history of Man, the popular belief has been proven wrong.

I warned you that you were trying to defend an indefensible position. Quantum Physics is indefensible against any serious philosopher (as opposed to one who seriously studies philosophers). You should avoid them as Krauss and others know to do.

There is no reason to believe that there is a minimum size .. because there isn't a minimum size (except for particles). And that can be logically proven and then empirically verified.

The video in the OP states that what we call "mass" is an "emergent property". That is a provably true fact. But it doesn't emerge from Plank size bubbles, as Krauss would have you believe. It emerges from ultra infinitesimal EM pulses (Affectance). That can be proven both logically and empirically.


But thks for the debate.

JSS wrote:The problem, Leo, is that we were discussing mass and the ability to divide it infinitely when you stated that it cannot be done because of a math issue (as Phil has pointed out).

I didn't say that. I said it was logically impossible as well as physically impossible and I referred to Cantorian set theory to illustrate my point. In set theory a clear distinction is made between abstract and real entities.

JSS wrote:"mass" is an "emergent property". That is a provably true fact. But it doesn't emerge from Plank size bubbles, as Krauss would have you believe. It emerges from ultra infinitesimal EM pulses (Affectance). That can be proven both logically and empirically.

Krauss is by no means my favourite physicist but he's got your bullshit covered.

attofishpi wrote: Sorry wot had a search earlier today...no luck, it basically states how regular events on a 'stationary' point such as a 4 piston engine, continue, if something is passing the faster it goes the less cycle on the engine cylinders, to the point that at the speed of light it is only a single moment in time (for the photon).

Well, thanks for trying. I think if you consider time to be a measure of change, then the only change a photon undergoes is emission and absorption. In between, nothing happens to it. A consequence of the point I was making in the cartoon is that, short of colliding with something, anything travelling at the speed of light will experience no change, for the simple reason that nothing can catch it to affect a change. Nothing happens. No change. No time.
On the other hand, it maybe that time is some sort of stuff that matter moves through, which is more or less how it is modelled for the purposes of physics. But that just raises the same problem that faces any dualistic ontology, GR included: how do two radically different substances interact?

uwot wrote:

attofishpi wrote: Sorry wot had a search earlier today...no luck, it basically states how regular events on a 'stationary' point such as a 4 piston engine, continue, if something is passing the faster it goes the less cycle on the engine cylinders, to the point that at the speed of light it is only a single moment in time (for the photon).

Well, thanks for trying. I think if you consider time to be a measure of change, then the only change a photon undergoes is emission and absorption. In between, nothing happens to it. A consequence of the point I was making in the cartoon is that, short of colliding with something, anything travelling at the speed of light will experience no change, for the simple reason that nothing can catch it to affect a change. Nothing happens. No change. No time.
On the other hand, it maybe that time is some sort of stuff that matter moves through, which is more or less how it is modelled for the purposes of physics. But that just raises the same problem that faces any dualistic ontology, GR included: how do two radically different substances interact?

Doesn't every photon have to cross paths with other photons, the CMB, every other EMR, and gravity that might be floating in its path all during its travel? EMR and gravity affects photons (which are themselves EMR). Their combined affect is what sets the "speed of light" in that region of space.

JSS wrote:Doesn't every photon have to cross paths with other photons, the CMB, every other EMR, and gravity that might be floating in its path all during its travel? EMR and gravity affects photons (which are themselves EMR). Their combined affect is what sets the "speed of light" in that region of space.

Well, yes. There is nowhere we are ever likely to encounter that is completely flat and photons have to ride the waves with the rest of us. But in terms of time being change, does that change a photon? On the other hand, if a photon 'experiences' a sequence of events, or at least influences, then can we say it doesn't experience time?

uwot wrote:

JSS wrote:Doesn't every photon have to cross paths with other photons, the CMB, every other EMR, and gravity that might be floating in its path all during its travel? EMR and gravity affects photons (which are themselves EMR). Their combined affect is what sets the "speed of light" in that region of space.

Well, yes. There is nowhere we are ever likely to encounter that is completely flat and photons have to ride the waves with the rest of us. But in terms of time being change, does that change a photon? On the other hand, if a photon 'experiences' a sequence of events, or at least influences, then can we say it doesn't experience time?

Well a photon cannot experience, period. A photon is a "puff" of ultra-minuscule EMR, "affectance". It travels as fast as affect can travel. But that speed is dependent upon what it encounters along the way. An increase in gravity field will slow a photon. The constant speed of light spoken of as "c" refers to the theoretical speed of a puff of affectance in an absolute void, which can't actually exist. So at all times in the real world, light photons are always going slower than c.

The following is a short gif I put together (using the real equations) to show how an EMR pulse distorts and slows as it travels from lesser to more dense affectance:



The blue is the electric potential and the purple is the magnetic. The magnetic field is basically just a compressed electric field. The degree of compression increases and decreases as a propagating potential pulse enters and leaves a dense gravity field (or mass field).

JSS wrote:Well a photon cannot experience, period.

You don't say. How about 'be subject to'?

JSS wrote:A photon is a "puff" of ultra-minuscule EMR, "affectance".

Force carrying virtual particle? Causal agent? Blob of energy? The Holy Ghost? Leibniz used a term that is usually translated as appetition. I quite like the term, but how is affectance different from any or all of the above?

JSS wrote:It travels as fast as affect can travel. But that speed is dependent upon what it encounters along the way. An increase in gravity field will slow a photon.

Quite. Which to my mind suggests that a phenomenon that is indistinguishable from refraction, is in fact refraction. It's a bit clearer in the case of starlight bending around the sun, but as matter is composed of bits of affectance (if you would go so far) tumbling over each other, they are refracted as they pass one way through a field, and again as they pass the opposite way and any other component velocity which perpendicular to the source of the field. The net result being a small force towards that source.

JSS wrote:The constant speed of light spoken of as "c" refers to the theoretical speed of a puff of affectance in an absolute void, which can't actually exist. So at all times in the real world, light photons are always going slower than c.

Yup. Because:

uwot wrote:There is nowhere we are ever likely to encounter that is completely flat and photons have to ride the waves with the rest of us.

So, your gif tells us that magnetic potential increases in the presence of mass. Should we draw anything from that?

uwot wrote: Which to my mind suggests that a phenomenon that is indistinguishable from refraction, is in fact refraction.

It seems that the bloody obvious is contagious, uwot. What then of the so-called "constant" speed of light? Is the speed of light a constant, as suggested by SR, or is the speed of light proportional to clock-speed, as MANDATED by GR? Answer this question correctly and you get a free ToE.

uwot wrote:

JSS wrote:Well a photon cannot experience, period.

You don't say. How about 'be subject to'?

JSS wrote:A photon is a "puff" of ultra-minuscule EMR, "affectance".

Force carrying virtual particle? Causal agent? Blob of energy? The Holy Ghost? Leibniz used a term that is usually translated as appetition. I quite like the term, but how is affectance different from any or all of the above?

Affectance is provable/undeniable. It has independent meaning, not an arbitrary word or a theorized substance.

uwot wrote:Which to my mind suggests that a phenomenon that is indistinguishable from refraction, is in fact refraction.

True, that is what causes refraction, although when dealing with materials, photons are larger than the bits of mass within so the dynamic is a little different, yet still the same basic thing - slowing one side of the little puff more than the other side, causing a bend in propagation. What causes it to stay a little puff and not dissipate is a more complicated version of the same principle. A photon is mildly anentropic.

In the following an "afflate" merely means an "affectance oblate", a roughly spherical portion of affectance, much like a light photon, but of no particular size.

uwot wrote: matter is composed of bits of affectance (if you would go so far) tumbling over each other, they are refracted as they pass one way through a field, and again as they pass the opposite way and any other component velocity which perpendicular to the source of the field. The net result being a small force towards that source.

Affectance comes in portions. The word "bits" gets taken as being particulate. Affectance is not formed of particulates of any kind. It forms the particulates/particles.

And you are exactly right, as sufficient portions of affectance (or photons) come together, they cause even more to spiral in to cause a particulate of noise that has inertia, a "mass particle". That particle is merely a traffic jam of affectance that is spread a little thinner the further away from the center of the traffic jam, very much the same as automobile traffic jams or a crowd of people at the train station, coming and going, yet leaving the jam behind. The noisy clump has inertia due to the increased amount of changing-of-potential going on. Something that is already changing as fast as anything can change, can't be changed any further, thus is frozen in place. There is more to that story.

The following, although poorly made, is from an actual metaspace emulation. Those tiny portions of affectance floating around (roughly from 40,000 to 100,000 of them in a 3D metaspace) independently begin gathering at the center due to the aggregation causing that spiraling into a more and more dense concentration until a maximum density is reached.

uwot wrote: So, your gif tells us that magnetic potential increases in the presence of mass. Should we draw anything from that?

I don't know of anything particularly significant to use that information for at the moment. The magnetic field increases as the pulse enters the mass/gravity field. If there is no change in affectance density/mass field density, the magnetic field doesn't change either.


The clump of noise or "traffic jam" known as a subatomic (mono)particle eventually forms a cloud of affectance noise surrounding the particle, known as a mass or gravity field with the following density distribution (which is slightly dependent upon the ambient density as shown):


The significance of that thought is that subatomic particles do not actually maintain the exact same size as they change from a strong gravity field to a weaker one. The subatomic particles of a space shuttle leaving Earth actually reduce in diameter and in mass. Fortunately the atomic structure remains relatively the same. If that shuttle were to fall into a black hole, the subatomic particles would grow huge and the atomic structure would not be able to be maintained. The atoms would become much smaller and a nuclear explosion should be expected.

JSS wrote:Affectance is provable/undeniable. It has independent meaning, not an arbitrary word or a theorized substance.

So how is it different to 'force'?
As long standing members are no doubt bored of reading, I think the simplest explanation for all the phenomena that give the impression that there is a universe made of some stuff, is some stuff the universe is made of. Thank you for the gifs, they illustrate your points very well. Is there a reason they cannot apply to a substance?

Obvious Leo wrote:What then of the so-called "constant" speed of light? Is the speed of light a constant, as suggested by SR, or is the speed of light proportional to clock-speed, as MANDATED by GR? Answer this question correctly and you get a free ToE.

Leo, me old mucker, you know I love ya, but that is a false dichotomy and a leading question. Bad, bad Leo!
Anyway, I'm sure I have said several times that time, in my view, is only comparing one set of events with another, rotations of our planet with the vibrations of caesium, for example. It is just meaningless to say that time passes if nothing happens. The rate at which things happen depends on motion, as in SR, and gravity, as in GR. All SR says is that c is the speed of light on a vacuum, but nowhere in the universe is a vacuum, so the speed of light is never c.

uwot wrote:

JSS wrote:Affectance is provable/undeniable. It has independent meaning, not an arbitrary word or a theorized substance.

So how is it different to 'force'?

The concept of "force" is actually a macroscopic concept of pushing or pulling. But on the subatomic level, there is no such thing as a pushing or pulling force. Instead things migrate due to density variations in the immediate surroundings. The motion that occurs due to changes in the ambient field is what yields the functional concept of pushing as an emergent property. Force is not an true physical entity, but an idea.

For a very concentrated brief: Affectance Briefing

uwot wrote:As long standing members are no doubt bored of reading, I think the simplest explanation for all the phenomena that give the impression that there is a universe made of some stuff, is some stuff the universe is made of. Thank you for the gifs, they illustrate your points very well. Is there a reason they cannot apply to a substance?

I'm not certain what you are asking. To me, the issue is that people don't have a clear understanding of what "substance" really means. It isn't what you think. Affectance is the substance of the universe but at the same time, it is the changing of that universe substance. Physicality is entirely made of the changing. And that means that it is made of the changing of the changing or "affect upon affect": Affectance. The underlying "substance" to everything in the entire universe is "the changing of the changing", "affect upon affect", "Affectance". There is nothing else in any physical universe. What you see as objects are merely variations in concentrations and nuances (potentiality and density).

uwot wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:What then of the so-called "constant" speed of light? Is the speed of light a constant, as suggested by SR, or is the speed of light proportional to clock-speed, as MANDATED by GR? Answer this question correctly and you get a free ToE.

Leo, me old mucker, you know I love ya, but that is a false dichotomy and a leading question. Bad, bad Leo!
Anyway, I'm sure I have said several times that time, in my view, is only comparing one set of events with another, rotations of our planet with the vibrations of caesium, for example. It is just meaningless to say that time passes if nothing happens. The rate at which things happen depends on motion, as in SR, and gravity, as in GR. All SR says is that c is the speed of light on a vacuum, but nowhere in the universe is a vacuum, so the speed of light is never c.

You missed my point. We agreed that if it quacks like a duck it's probably a duck so if gravitational lensing looks like refraction then that's what it is. That means c is proportional to clockspeed and slows down in a gravitational "field" relative to a distant observer. The observer observes this slowing down effect as "bent" light. It's too simple not to be true and needs no such bullshit as a "curved space", whatever the fuck that's supposed to be.

My model of a universal ether could rationally account for gravitational lensing (in addition to a number of others, such as quantum entanglemenht.)

As light "leaves" a distant star (a better term than "leaves" would be that the light beam's photonic light-forces "diffuse" into space), it is in a state of high photonic energization, from its close proximity to the star, as it resonated with it. Entering space, a photonic emissional beam primarily consists of elemental etheric units. (The quantum photonic units we observe in our earth world's quantum setting are actually (cosmically speaking) "incidentally" generated along the path of the photonic beam, as the elemental ether units are tranbsmitted via their vibrational resonances with each other.) -In "choosing" a path to follow in space, such a photonic beam selectively senses, and, via the same kind of etheric vibrational resonances, focuses-in on, distant foci of photonic energy such as (for example) our Sun.

On its resonational way from the star to our Sun, the beam passes straight through space, which is relatively less photonically-energized than the region near the distant star, so the etheric units transmitting the beam gradually become, through resonating with the ether in space, less photonically-energized.

Then, once again entering a more highly photonically-energized region near our Sun, the light beam is induced to change its spatial pathway pattern, due to its etheric components now being affected by a different kind of resonation, in this suddenly-much-higher, photonically-energized spatial regions near our Sun. -That's why the star's light beam is seen to bend around the Sun.

Michael MD wrote:My model of a universal ether could rationally account for gravitational lensing (in addition to a number of others, such as quantum entanglemenht.)

As light "leaves" a distant star (a better term than "leaves" would be that the light beam's photonic light-forces "diffuse" into space), it is in a state of high photonic energization, from its close proximity to the star, as it resonated with it. Entering space, a photonic emissional beam primarily consists of elemental etheric units. (The quantum photonic units we observe in our earth world's quantum setting are actually (cosmically speaking) "incidentally" generated along the path of the photonic beam, as the elemental ether units are tranbsmitted via their vibrational resonances with each other.) -In "choosing" a path to follow in space, such a photonic beam selectively senses, and, via the same kind of etheric vibrational resonances, focuses-in on, distant foci of photonic energy such as (for example) our Sun.

On its resonational way from the star to our Sun, the beam passes straight through space, which is relatively less photonically-energized than the region near the distant star, so the etheric units transmitting the beam gradually become, through resonating with the ether in space, less photonically-energized.

Then, once again entering a more highly photonically-energized region near our Sun, the light beam is induced to change its spatial pathway pattern, due to its etheric components now being affected by a different kind of resonation, in this suddenly-much-higher, photonically-energized spatial regions near our Sun. -That's why the star's light beam is seen to bend around the Sun.

..seems a bit complicated, but perhaps merely because of the wording:

• photonic light forces
  photonic energization
  photonic emissional beam
  elemental etheric units
  vibrational resoances
  phontic energy(ized)
  etheric components

My first question would be why does the aether exist at all?
Next might be (depending on the prior answer) what is a "photon" or "photonic emmissional beam" made of in relation to the aether?