Universe and Time

Very well said, James.

James, in your thread “Forces or Farces” you are asking whether “forces” are “farces” or not, and I think we should not speak of “forces” but of “interactions”. And if we do that, it will soon become obvious that gravity is not the “queen of the universe” but merely one of the natural interactions.

I partially agree. But the truth is more that gravity is not even an interaction between two masses, but rather an interaction between a mass and its own immediate ambient surroundings, not the other mass-particle. The behavior of each mass-particle is a reflection of its situation, its surroundings. It is the surroundings, the ambient, that causes the concentrations of mass, the particles, to migrate toward each other. That migration is observed and recorded by Science as “gravitational force”, even though no forcing (no pulling or pushing) ever occurred.

So you are saying that the interaction between the Earth and the Moon is not the interaction between their masses but the “interaction between a mass and its own immediate ambient surroundings”. Is it the mass of the Earth, or the mass of the Moon, or a mass “somewhere between them” (but where?), or even another mass? And if it is only the surrounding which is it? Is it more the surrounding of the Earth or of the Moon?

Yes.

There is only one existing substance and it has many forms which we name independently as though there was no relation. The substance that makes up “mass” is the exact same substance that makes up “empty” space - chaotic, ultra minuscule EMR, Affectance. When affectance is ultra thin, low in density, we call it “empty space”. When affectance is ultra concentrated, high density, we call it “mass”.

The Earth is surrounded by a very, very low concentration of its own mass substance (affectance). And so is the Moon. If you affect that substance, either “object” (the highly concentrated affectance globs) will move accordingly. Neither object is conscious of the other, only reacting to its immediate surroundings (what human’s should do more of).

But also realize this;

Does the mass, does the weight of bodies play no role in RM:AO?

What we call the weight or mass of bodies is merely the locations where affectance has become extremely dense. Spreading out from such locations the density of the affectance rapidly diminishes such as to appear as mere vacuum. The gravitation and weight concepts have relevance to us, so we measure those values as if mass bodies were pulling at each other across the relative vacuum between the affectance concentrations (the bodies). So in RM:AO weight exists merely as a value that can be calculated, as does mass, but they are not individual entities or necessary properties. It is like calculating an average value. The average value doesn’t exist as an actual entity or even an actual quantity, but it is still important to calculate such things.

The effect that we call “gravitation” aberrantly exists. But there is no force that is causing it. Rather it is due to the migration of the ever-replenishing concentrations. What we call “weight” is just another term for gravitational pressure.

It is conceivable that one could alter the ambient affectance field between two mass objects in such a way as to cause them to become weightless with respect to each other, no longer migrating toward each other, and neutralize the gravitation. And it is also conceivable that one could alter that field to cause the masses to migrate more strongly, increasing their relative weight. The weight of the masses is entirely dependent upon the affectance field surrounding the masses. And that field can be manipulated, although it takes a lot to get it done. I can explain the principle for causing weightlessness, but making something that can actually do it is a lot trickier.

But in conclusion that would mean that also the weight of each human body “is merely the locations where affectance has become extremely dense” and “is entirely dependent upon the affectance field surrounding the masses” respectively the bodies, so that each body, regardless which one, is merely an affectance concentration and its weight entierely dependent upon the affectance field surrounding it (?).

You are saying that “‘weight’ is just another term for gravitational pressure”. But “pressure” seems to be something like a force and similar to “pushing”. I conclude that you are saying that gravity is a force but not caused by a force, although you told me at an earlier time that gravity was not a force.

Yes.

We still use the terms “force” and “pressure” in order to express the belligerent migratory behavior of the individual and group concentrations of affectance. My point is merely that what is being called a “force” or “pressure” is not a pushing or pulling down on the lower level, but rather merely an insistence from the mass-particles, the concentrations, to mindlessly, incrementally, and belligerently reconstruct themselves closer together instant by instant. On the macroscopic scale, we perceive it as pushing or pulling even though o the extreme pico-scopic scale, it is merely the migration of MCR events.

What do you think about a cyclic universe?

Such an universe starts and ends again and again, so that every and any situation appears again and again, each life would be lived again and again, everything and anything repeats again and again.

I think that in my case, the question of it is a little bit dangerous.

I think that…

…the thought of such things is so far away from any sane concern of any living being that the question is very telling. I think that anyone concerned with such a thought is almost beyond any redemption (hope of not merely suffering throughout life).

Seriously, what real difference to YOU does it make as to what was possibly going on some 14 billion years ago?

But forgiving that issue, hypothetically proposing that such concerns could have even the slightest bit of relevance to anyone of this age, what I suspect (with more than just a little reason for suspecting it) is that “a local universe” occurs now and then due to circumstances in particular locations that are similar, but never identical, to our own. In each case, the “people” involved wonder for a generation or two about the possibilities of this or that. In every case, their imaginations run wild with speculative possibilities and concerns. Yet in every case, throughout eternal time, they eventually become a species that is not concerned with what might have happened 14 billions yeas prior.

They are not concerned with the fact that each local universe survives by its own willingness to face its own immediate situation, its “will to obey the truth”. Insteaqd, they are only concerned with their truest exactly precise situation.

Each one does not have a reminiscence of it or just never experience it.

?? I can’t translate that. :-s

One is not able to remember what was before and after one’s life with memory. One just needs a memory. If the memory of a person does not work, then … What is then? What happens to this person then? - However. A person does not remember what happened during the time when the memory of this person did not work. And in a cyclic universe the memory refers even to both past and future. There is merely one existence for merely one entity (being) in a cyclic universe, and this existence is always identical with itself.

I forgot.
8-[

True enough, although we could play with those thoughts.

As I explained to Edmandu and Bannon, throughout an infinite duration of time, the universe could never exactly repeat any state it had been in before. The possibility of such an occurrence is infinitely times infinitely low (although I forgot the exact number).

But interestingly at every moment for an infinite duration of time, there exists an infinite number of you who are infinitely like you. But in merely one infinitesimal of time, none of them are infinitely like you any longer. But during that same infinitesimal moment, another infinite number of you’s become infinitely like you. It is a shame that they seem to always be an infinite distance away. :frowning:

I think that the complete understandability of the universe, especially of its beginning and of its end, is more an issue of philosophy or/and theology than of physics or/and mathematics, because especially the question of the physical beginning and the physical end of the universe can merely be answered, if the framework conditions are defined and not only calculated / computed. Mathematics allows too much, even the calculation of things humans can never completely understand by using other scientific disciplines than mathematics. I think the humans are not able to completely understand such things, although they are able to calculate / compute them.

It always must begin with philosophy (which is theology). And that philosophical beginning is an ontology formed with Definitional Logic. Science comes in after enough ontology has been developed to test the hypotheses in order to form what we now call “physics” (originally referred to as “natural philosophy”/“philosophy of nature”).

Perhaps “humans” can’t, but I can. Unlike “humans”, I know that proper logic can indeed answer all questions of ontological principles (what can or cannot possibly or probably exist). The universe is affectance and it is logically impossible to ever have or have had absolute zero affectance. Although, perhaps interestingly, it is also impossible to know the exact state of the affectance at any one time (though often one can measure pretty damn close).

I also can. :sunglasses: :laughing:

But that is not what I meant. I meant the whole “story”, especially the beginning and the end of the universe. I did not mean the “ontological principles”, because I said that it is an issue of philosophy or/and theology (for example your “ontological principles”), but I meant that “humans” are not able to understand the whole universe in the way they try it merely with physics and mathematics, because nobody of them understands the beginning and the end of the universe, and if one of them did, this one would also understand why the universe has a beginning or not and an end or not, thus this one would understand something which was before the beginning and after the end of the universe. Your RM:AO does also not refer to the time when the universe was made, if it was made, and how it began, if it did, and how it is going to end, if it is going to. And the answer that the universe has no beginning and end, can be logically explained, yes, but it is - nonetheless - not the last answer to the question whether e.g. there is something outside of the universe.

RM:AO explains why there was no beginning, why there can be no end, and why there is nothing “outside the universe” (other than the principles/divine realm). RM:AO explains the precise why’s, what’s, and how’s (the principles) to just about any question you can ask. It cannot answer without measurements, the precise who’s, where’s, when’s, and how-much’s.

Where does affectance originally come from?