Universe and Time

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?

A “Multiverse” is a social and psychological concept, not a physical concept except to solipsists. At any one time, there are groups of people who are thinking in different terms than others, yet dealing with the same reality. So it is said that they are in “parallel universes” wherein they each have their formulas (laws of how things work), leaders, and similar programs to manage their “world of influence”. But one cannot think in terms of the other, so each seems invisible to the other.

For example, the Catholics control a different map of “national” boundaries more related to cultural boundaries. They have their own hierarchy of authority. Yet the same people are being managed as the Secularists with their map of influence. Hierarchies of influence overlap and since most of them are secretive, they can’t clearly see each other = “multiverse” or “parallel universes”.

Noise plays an important role in RM:AO. In accordance with current physics there is no noise outside, at the utmost a quiet noise, of an body atmosphere. Do you mean a quiet / low sound with the word “noise”?

I am merely referring to random EMR spikes, “electromagnetic noise” or “Affectance noise”, not specifically “sound noise”.

My question was directed more to the WORD “noise”. I understand it also as a reasonably loud sound / noise. But since English is not my first language, I’m not sure. whether you meant it that way. Noise can’t be loud in almost empty spaces of the universe because wil there are hardly any transfer agent.

Well, in English, the word “noise” merely refers to meaningless random sounds, not especially loud. For loud noise, we say, “Loud Noise”. And the Affectance equivalent would be bright white light or even plasma.

I thought so. But I was not sure. Therefore my question.

Yep.

The “particle motion” means that the “particle” moves or relocates because the center of the clump of noise has shifted toward the more dense affectance field, if the ambient affectance noise had been denser on one side of a particle than the opposite.

So you use the word “density” instead of the word “mass” or the word “gravity” because you are saying that the density moves and attracts, although the physicists have been saying for some centuries that also in the case of density the gravity is the cause of moving and attracting, not the density itself, although the density is the most important factor of mass and thus gravity.

Thus density is defined as mass divided by volume:
[list][list][list][list][list][list][list] density = mass / volume[/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u]

  • thus:
    [list][list][list][list][list][list][list] .[/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u]

Do you go even as far as saying that the density has more to do with the electromagnetic field, the affectance field, than with the gravitation and its field?
That would be strange.