Universe and Time

I’m afraid we will have to continue to live with these two “worlds”. This “worlds” are similar to e.g. the subject/object-dualism and the existence/nothingness-dualism, which we have already discussed several times.

Yes, but RM (RM specifically, not “RM:AO”) handles that issue. RM is a method for creating ontologies, mental understandings (their QP world) that are totally coherent and comprehensive, unlike current QP. AO is merely the first that I created using RM, involving “affectance” as the one “field” from which all fields arise.

“Truth” is different than “Reality” because truth is about an ontology of understanding approximations of reality. The mind cannot even begin to hold all of reality within itself. But the mind can categorize and thus simplify reality based on relevant need, thereby capable of slowly managing to handle reality sufficiently, even though never aware of the totality of it at any one moment. So the mental map is all that is required, but it has to be a coherent and comprehensive map if it is ever going to solve all of the problems of dealing with Reality. RM is a method to allow that to be done.

The mankind should not allow the annihilation of the difference between „truth“ and „reality“. In Europe it is already practically forbidden to speak of „truth“ (you know why, James). „There is no truth at all“, it is often said as soon as one speaks of it. Ridiculous. It is so important that the difference remains.

When the world is being reprogrammed, they prefer to erase the old truths before instilling the new truths. They do that by going through several generations of denying all truth (a “dark era”). By the time they get done, it might be true that the world wars never took place. Or perhaps that they were a wars that the Chinese started with the French. All books and records indicating anything other than the new history will be destroyed. And anyone implying anything other than “what everyone knows to be true” will be laughed at, before arrested and forcefully reprogrammed or just erased.

Yes, but … „the Chinese … with the French“? :laughing:

Before we deviate too much from the topic: what does RM:AO tell about the universe and the time? How different are its explanations from those of mainstream physics?

And you are right: Denying the truth can also lead to an end of history, at least to a temporary end of history (until the new history begins). And you are also right by saying: All books and records indicating anything other than the new history will be destroyed. And anyone implying anything other than “what everyone knows to be true” will be laughed at, before arrested and forcefully reprogrammed or just erased. This has been becoming the real sitaution since the beginning of the “machine age”.

Well, that is the purpose of the RM:AO Fundamentals thread, to explain the relation between the two.

The greatest difference is that RM:AO explains literally everything in terms of a single field, “Affectance”. And because of what that word means, “All subtle Affects”, it automatically relates to literally all other sciences, not just physics. It is a true “Theory of Everything” or “Grand Unified Theory” as well as a “Unified Field Theory”. And unlike physics, is logically provable to the ultimate extreme.

At the very most fundamental level, the Electric Potential is nearly identical to the Potential-to-Affect, PtA. And thus the resultant Affectance is nearly identical to the Electromagnetic Radiation, EMR. But Affectance can also be understood simply as “Energy”.

I don’t use common physics terms in RM:AO because of the misunderstandings commonly associated with them, even though technically, there is a great deal of similarity.

The universe is filled entirely with nothing but an ocean of Affectance motion, obeying Logic at every instant.

Physics is logically provable, but not logically provable to the ultimate extreme.

Sometimes physicists understand the EMR as energy as well as you the affectance as energy.

You are right by doing so. The probability of misunderstandings would be too high.

I think that - especially relating to this point - the physicists are attacking you with their statement that “the very largest part of the universe is rather empty”.

That depends on your “physics”. :sunglasses:
I contend that RM:AO is. But of course, one must be able to understand and follow logic in ultimate detail (to match the extreme). Anyone can irrationally argue against anything and thus prove/disprove nothing.

True, but they are coming around. Krauss has been allowed to publish a book that proposes that “empty space” is actually filled with energy and even before the Big Bogus Bang. Of course, being a quantum physicist, he declares that it is filled with tiny quantum energy bubbles as a foam. If anyone thinks about it for even an instant… no matter where you were floating in space, you would be able to see stars. If you can see anything at all, it is only because light is there, an ocean of light filling every tiny spec of all space. How many photons are between your eye and the wall in front of you? More than you can count.

It seems odd to me that they have so much distaste for handling the infinities and infinitesimals. I am suspecting that it is an ego issue concerning religion. But perhaps it is merely an ego issue concerning the ability to claim total knowledge (the Godwannaes’s dream).

What do you think about that “tiny quantum energy bubbles as a foam”, James?

Superstitious nonsense. They came up with the idea of a minimum “Planck” length in order to uphold an earlier extrapolated theory. And then had to proclaim that energy pops in and out of existence without cause so as to support their Plank length theory. They have had to invent quite a number of things in order to support prior presumptuous theories = superstition, the stitching together of presumed facts by irrational reasoning, aka “magic”, which is of course exactly what they constantly accuse the religions of doing (because that is the only thing they know how to do so they assume that is what everyone does). Of course, it is only okay to invent superstitious “gods of the gaps” if it is in the name of Science. But a religion is as a religion does. :icon-rolleyes:

As explained earlier, it is impossible for even the tiniest portion of space to be without affectance, “energy”, Planck or no Planck. But as it is said, one must remove the plank out of his own eye, before he can see to pick the splinter out of another’s.

The family name of Max Planck was not “Plank”, but Planck.

Yeah, sorry. Thx.

Relating to RM:AO, it would be very interesting to know what that “motion” means when it comes to form bodies which are very much greater than particles, and especially when it coems to form such “bodies” like “communal particles” or even cultures.

Let me guess: even the same, the difference is merely relative to greater bodies and to living beings.

ALL bodies move ONLY when their internal components are inspired to move. That is very relevant to psychology and sociology, but applies to literally ALL bodies, whether particles, compound molecules, people, or nations. And ALL changes in motion of bodies, though from the inside, is inspired by what is outside the body.

Germany can only relocate by all of its people relocating, which in turn will inspire internal motion of other countries, usually against the motion Germany and toward the vacuum left behind. A person is inspired to do things by being inspired inside by something on the outside, although he seldom realizes it. A person is always inspired by his “Perception” of Hope and Threat (his personal “positive and negative”). Perception is always referring to an inside perceiving an outside. Even when it is trying to perceive itself, it sees itself as something outside of, other than, itself, as though looking in a mirror; “introspection”, “reflecting upon oneself”.

Usually cultures don’t relocate, but rather subtly spread, “cultural affectance”.

There is no actual pushing or pulling (as a Buddhist will tell you). All motion, although inspired by the outside, is only accomplished by the inside, a choice made by the person.

But cultures are “merely” the biggest / largest / greatest forms of “communal particles”, at least to me. I guess that you would say that nations or empires are the biggest / largest / greatest forms of “communal particles”.

However, in nature or the so called “universe” the biggest / largest / greatest forms of “communal particles” are the galaxies or even the universe itself.

Nations are military/political imagined borders, agreements between political leaders and royal families. Cultures are more about traditional thinking patterns and genetic influences. Thus national borders can be (and are being) rearranged more easily than cultures can be relocated. Cultures tend to spread from a general point of origin and compete with others, not so pron to simple agreements of proclaimed leaders lusting for ultimate control.

You might say that a culture is a more stable “particle” than a nation.

Yes, but not in any case.

But let us stay closer to the topic: the galaxies or even the universe itself as a “great particle”?

I could agree with a galaxy being a “particle within the universe”, but the universe cannot be said to be a particle. A “particle” refers to a “part” or small bit of something. Obviously the entire universe, being all “things”, cannot be a small bit of some-thing.

A “multiverse” is not a good idea for you, is it?