Universe and Time

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

As has been shown in a variety of threads, it is logically impossible for affectance to NOT exist. I gave a mathematical proof for it, I think on one of JohnJBannan’s threads. Affectance does “come from” anywhere because affectance IS everywhere at all times. Affectance would not be possible if the lack of it was not impossible.

[size=150]Existence IS Affectance[/size]

One math proof as to why it is impossible for the universe to NOT exist (from Bannon’s thread);

Yes. If there is absolutely homgenitity, then there is nothing perceptible. So absolutely homgenitity is like nothingness.

You said (here):

According to RM:AO there is no pushing and pulling; but if so: what prevents that Earth and Moon do not “migrate toward each other”?

You said (here):

According to RM:AO Earth and Moon must “migrate toward each other”, because the “concentration/density is greater between” Earth and Moon" than other surrounding areas". So again: what prevents that Earth and Moon do not “migrate toward each other”?

What prevents the Earth and Moon from coming together is what we call “tangential momentum” causing an orbiting. The Moon is in fact always falling toward the Earth, but by the time the Moon gets down to surface level, the Earth isn’t there any more. The Moon is always “over-shooting” the Earth because the Moon has momentum tangent to its migrational fall.

Momentum is the property of an affectance traffic-jam, “mass particle”, that is composed of affectance that is traveling more in one direction than others. As any particle begins to move, for whatever reason, it acquires more affectance within it that is traveling in that same direction as that movement and thus the particle keeps moving even after any reason for it to begin moving has gone away.

Particle momentum has some interesting properties.

What do you exactly mean by “tangential momentum”, and why can a “tangential momentum” cause an orbiting?

That is something everyone already knows about, so perhaps I am not understanding your question.

In the case of the Moon, there is a vector of migration toward the Earth and also one parallel to the Earth’s surface (“tangent”) directly related to the orbital velocity. The combination of the two vectors causes the Moon to curve around the Earth rather than go directly at it or fly off away from it.

Before relativity and RM:AO the calculations for orbiting involved momentum as one of the vectors and “gravitational force” as the other. Relativity converts the concepts into a presumed bent space issue. In RM:AO it is a matter of momentum and migratory acceleration (aka “force of gravity”).

Since Galilei, Kepler, and Newton the physicists have been explaining the cause of the orbiting by two forces.

Further proof that Man need not be perfectly right in order to make progress.
He just has to be better at making progress toward being perfectly right.