Universe and Time

What do you think about the differences relating to “change”? What do you think about “development”, “evolution”, “history”, their differences?

When some people talk about “nature” or about “universe and time”, they don’t make any difference and say for example “‘history’ of the nature”, “‘history’ of the universe”, … and so on, or “‘evolution’ of the nature”, “‘evolution’ of the universe”, … and so on. That’s not necessarily wrong, but to me the adequate word for the describing of the natural or universal “change” is “development” (or “change” itself) and not “evolution” or even “history”.

James, you are speaking of “positive noise” and “negative noise”, also of “positive waves” and “negative waves”. How much is that in accordance with the positve and negative particles?


That is a anime pic of positive, negative, and neutral “noise” made of positive and negative “waves” (or “wavelets”). Each of those is a particle. They have a Lorentzian density curve of wave(lets) causing the formation of the “particles”. And each of those applies, not merely to physical reality (physics), but also to; sociological, psychological, and economic reality. Each has its own form of “particle”. And each is made of positive and negative noisy wavelets.

Those are only the monoparticles such as electrons, positrons, and neutrinos. Or single memories, single-priority groups, and monetary banks/savings. For each of those monoparticle types, a polyparticle type can form with a limited stability; anti-protons (“negatrons”), protons, neutrons. Or collections of associated memories/thoughts, multi-priority groups (such as a family), multi-monetary banks (savings or collections from different sources or currencies).

All levels of life, thought, and existence can be understood as groupings of noisy positive and negative wavelets of influence/affects. Order is created from the natural groupings of noisy particles known as “matter” or “material concerns”.

And in all things, a negative is no more than merely the lack of a positive affectance. A negatively ordered house is merely a house less orderly than the average (ambient). Ugliness is merely the lack of average or expected beauty. And interestingly, as the Catholic Church teaches, Evil is merely the lack of the average or expected Good.

A wise man doesn’t think in terms of positive and negative except relative to a known expectation. To the wise man, all things are simply different levels of positive/good. But that doesn’t mean that nothing gets rejected from a particular setting. Things that are less good are still certainly filtered out when attempting to form a more positive setting. They are just never proclaimed absolutely negative, bad, or of no use at all for anything. To the saint, in reality, there is no negative (although there can certainly be a very substantial lack of positive).

But why is - or even must be - „a negative … merely the lack of a posive affectance“? Does „negative“ affectance not esxist? Is affectance always „positive“?

It is natural and mostly also useful to have opposites, contrasts, enemies, dualisms, … etc… The universe is made of opposites. We would therefore violate our nature, if we were not in accordance with it.

Can you name anything in nature that has an actual opposite? All things have a form of opposition to their existence, but what has an actual opposite? Nature has many things that have lesser forms and are called “opposite” or “negative” by subjective comparison (relative to some average or some expectation). But what would be the opposite of a squirrel, river, rain, tree, apple, or rock that isn’t merely a greater or lesser form relative to a chosen standard of the same kind of thing?

And affectance certainly has no opposite, nor does gravity or mass (both merely being affectance). We call a charge the opposite of another, but what we see with RM:AO, is that in reality, a negative electric charge particle is merely a concentration of lesser charge than the ambient and positive is merely a greater charge than the ambient.

I meant that form of opposition.

Why do you then calling the charges “positive” and “negative” instead of “greater charge” and “lesser charge”?

Because when I am explaining, I have to use the more common words and notions of the day. One can’t learn to speak a language, especially on the internet, if the person explaining it doesn’t ever use any words familiar to the one listening. Even if a unicorn doesn’t exist, one has to used the concept in order to propose that it doesn’t. Thus I say, “[what we call] a ‘negative charged particle’ is merely a concentration of lower affectance than the ambient”. And that ALL of the things that we CALL “negative” are in reality merely lesser than more positive things, not an opposite of positive things except in reference to an average, chosen standard, or expectation. Reality itself has no chosen standard or expectation or even awareness of any average. Averages are human mental constructs, as are standards and expectations. Physical reality has no such things. And thus physical reality actually has no negative of anything.

It is similar to the notion of “force”. Physical reality has no such thing as a force. A force is merely a perception of the mind, an assumption. The physical reality is actually merely migrating such as to change its locations around. Nothing is actually pulling or pushing, ever. But in order to explain that to those who believe in forces, I have to use the notion of “force”, the pulling and pushing that doesn’t actually exist.

AO accepts the mainstream definition of “charge”, but does not accept the mainstream definition of “positive” and “negative”. The mainstream definition of “wave” is accepted by AO, but partly not the mainstream definition of “particle”.

What you call “affectance” is nearly that what the mainstream physicists call “attraction”, and that is especially true for the electromagnetic “attraction”.

It isn’t a matter of accepting their definitions for their words, but rather what their definitions mean.

What they mean by “charge” is electric-potential. “Potential” means exactly what it is. The “Potential-to-Affect”, PtA, uses the word “potential” exactly as they do. They don’t use “charge” to mean anything different than that. So I have no need for a change of definition because RM:AO has a “potential” and thus a “charge”, although I only use the word “charge” when referring to commonly understood things like the charge of an electron.

And in the case of positive and negative, the only thing that I change is that such words can only reference an average, not an absolute. They actually already know that, but simply leave out the notion of it and thus inadvertently teach that “negative” is a separate thing from “positive” (“equal but opposite”), even though they well know that it is merely relative, until they came across subatomic particles. With subatomic particles, they didn’t know of what a negative particle could be relatively less than. They couldn’t grasp the idea that space isn’t empty. So they settled with the idea that space is zero and protons and electrons float “above zero” as “equal but opposite things”. I am merely pointing out that space is not “zero” and electrons are lower than space; lower “energy”, “potential”, “PtA”, and/or “Affectance”. And neither are negative things “equal”, even though they have opposite direction of potential/charge relative to the ambient.

Today, they know that space is not as empty as they had thought, but the idea of an electron being a higher potential-energy thing still lingers. Ambient space is the “average” that an electron is lower than, and thus properly negative relative to that average.

“Wave” merely refers to an abstract form and movement of something, like a rolling sphere, falling cube, or floating cloud.

I explain of what a particle is made and thus reveal that it isn’t quite what they teach, but the word “particle” is appropriate enough to keep.

??? Not even close. :frowning:

Affectance comes much closer to being their “mass field” or “energy field”. And there is no “attraction” in RM:AO, nor “repulsion”. Things merely migrate toward or away from other things due to their constant reforming of themselves based upon the field strength immediately around them. They feel no pulling or pushing. They rebuild themselves a little closer or further away because the field was a little stronger closer or further away. In common physics, a particle is a “solid mass”. In RM:AO a particle is a cluster of ultra-fine EMR noise busily buzzing about feeding off of the non-zero space all around it.

It is always the meaning because accept phonemes all linguistic forms (morphemes, lexemes/logemes [simiar to words], syntactemes, textemes, and even languages themselvses) have a meaning. So, the definitions of the physicists also mean what their definitions “say”. If (for example) a definition “says” that “charge is electric potential”, then it means that “charge is electric potential”.

I guess, you mean a kind of extended meaning.

Yes, as I said:

Have you not read it?

Yes, as I said:

Have you not read it?

They say that the density of the universe is about 10^-31 g/cm³ (estimated).

So “electrons are lower than space” means that electrons have “‘lower energy’, ‘potential’, ‘PTA’, and/or ‘affectance’” than space; but what is your definition of “space” then?

Yes, as I said: They estimate that the density of the universe is about 10^-31 g/cm³ (see above).

As I said:

Have you not read it?

But “affectance” is a word, related to “affect”, ,“affected”, “affection”, … and so on. So if I say “X has more affectance than X, and Y is affected by X”, I can also say: “X has more (force of) attractance than X, and Y is attracted by X”. – James, I know that you sometimes are using other words than the common physicists; but you should allow some comparisons because there are some analogies.

So, if we used some words of the common physicists and bring them into RM:AO, we could say: Affectance is a electromagnetic radiation of a electromagnetic field, not a force. Existence is that which has affect. – Could you agree with that?

That is not always the case because many of their words have become ambiguous, such as when they say that a photon has zero mass", they now only mean that it has zero “rest mass” (because it never rests). They declared that the photon could have no mass at all because Relativity implies that if it had any mass at all and traveled at the speed of light, that mass would become infinite. Eventually they discovered that a photon does have mass. So they distinguished the momentum for of mass from the gravity form of mass by calling the latter, “rest mass” (else their Relativity theory would be exposed as wrong).

So in RM:AO, when I say “mass”, I am referring to the amount or degree of affectance. A photon is merely a bunch of affectance that is all traveling in the same direction. Because it is all traveling in the same direction, it stays together (mostly). When all of the affectance within a bunch or cluster is traveling the same direction, it cannot form a stable particle because it is out running any accumulating or gathering of affectance, from surrounding space, that would otherwise take place such as to form a particle, an actual neutrino. If you could magically stop a photon from moving without it dissipating, it would form a neutrino particle because the surrounding affectance would accumulate into it, making it a cluster of the more common random noisy affectance (internally moving in all directions).

Also when they use the word “particle”, they now often refer to something that is in no sense a particle, such as a “gluon”. Quarks are “quazi-particles” and formed merely from a puffed up neutrino with a confused charge field allowing for the formation of both neutral and charged polyparticles (one particle made of many). A quark is not a stable particle in its own right. It cannot exist in free space and would reduce to being merely a neutrino if it didn’t entirely dissipate.

The point is that they have altered their words’ meanings to fit their theory’s needs such that at times, their words do not mean what they mean at other times, nor what they originally meant.

RM:AO is all about affects and since all of their words are referring to some kind of affect, everything they talk about relates back to affectance. The issue is merely which form and degree of affect; flowing, random, clustered, dense, or whatever. It is all the same “affectance” merely in varied forms and concentrations. They gave names to some of the forms, but then altered the names they gave, so their words are not exactly coherent any more (much like Hinduism).

I was agreeing by giving further detail so as to reduce any possible confusion.

Space is the field of relatively lower concentration of affectance, a cloud so then that you cannot see it. Within that cloud of affectance, any concentration becomes noticeable as either a “mass” or a “radiation” depending on how fast it is moving within the surrounding cloud. If all things became un-concentrated, there would be nothing but space made of randomly flowing affectance, unnoticeable, seemingly empty.

An “object” (any and every object) is merely a higher concentration of the affectance of space.

There are only two forms of physical existence;
1) Potential (the situation that brings change, involving locations of concentrations: “PtA”)
2) Changing (the potential altering itself into new concentrations and locations: “Affectance”)

Science and religious metaphysics have given very many names to the variety of forms of those. Many of the names have become conflated, confused, ambiguous, and incoherent. All that I can do is try to iron out some of what they were referring to with the names they used. When questioning any of the meanings of their words and names, one is merely asking “To what form of affectance is this word referring?

In Christianity, those exact same two are named;

  1. God, the father of creation
  2. Creation

But in using Christian words, would you have ever guessed what they were actually talking about? Christian followers guess it wrongly every day and in a variety of ways (as do followers in all of the religions, including secular science).

A black-hole is the “Real God’s” actual Hell, not merely “hellish” or “like hell”, but the actual physically real Hell, a spot of maximally concentrated chaos, absolutely no discernible order, within the universe of affectance. But in Jewish wording, it would be the “Abyss” wherein all order and form are totally randomized.

Unfortunately Christianity (and others) associated “Heaven” with absolute peace and order, which can only exist conceptually. Physically Heaven can only be partially emulated by relative peace. A far more permanent Heaven requires a high degree of harmonic motion of the separate small concentrations of noisy chaos (“particles”, “thoughts”, “groups”, whatever). The harmonic motion defends the spot of heaven from chaotic interference via its momentum to form a large spot of anentropy within which people can live: SAM.

The religions and science are talking about the same things, merely applying words differently to different forms and degrees. They are ALL talking about Potential and Affectance in their varied forms.

Affectance has nothing to do with “attraction” except as an aberrant appearance. Locations of concentrated affectance tend to migrate toward each other, unless in their own average potential they are both either above or below the ambient. concentrations of similar potential affectance will migrate away from each other for the exact same reason that religions and governments spread into different lands. They each have similar potential, but each has a different center of concentration, a different focus of concern.

I DO allow their use and I am making those comparisons. That is why I am trying to clarify to what degree they apply and when they can be properly used.

They say, “a photon has no mass but a rest mass” - which is in fact a funny statement.

Because it is out running any accumulating or gathering of affectance, from surrounding space, that would otherwise take place such as to form a particle, an actual neutrino? Can you explain that a bit more, especially “out running”?

Stop a photon from moving without it dissipating, it would form a neutrino particle? Can you explain that a bit more, especially “dissipating”?

Mainstream physics is not as closed as a metaphysical ontology (for example: RM:AO).

Two pre-conditions: space and time.

Yes. But not in any case.

Right, to clarify!

A particle is formed by random, ultra-fine, ultra-minuscule “wavelets” of EMR (or “affectance”) accumulating around a center location. It happens because as those wavelets of ultra-fine affects encounter each other, the slow each other into a crowd or cluster of noise.

If one has a bunch of EMR or affectance that is propagating through space (a field of affectance), it is traveling at the maximum speed that affects (or “light”) can travel through that particular density of affectance. As it propagates, it changes its “center” location, disallowing any "side coming affects or EMR from being slowed toward that center. The center keep moving out of the way of what would have been an accumulation of affectance. Thus the accumulation doesn’t occur.

Dissipation occurs when a bunch of affects (EMR) that had an association in either location or direction of propagation, changes or weakens its association, either by slightly changing its location or its direction. What they call a “photon” is merely a relatively large bunch of affectance (EMR) traveling in a single direction. But the truth is that every bit of that photon’s affectance isn’t propagating exactly in the same direction and even if is started so perfectly, it would be doing so for long. Thus a photon will actually dissipate, spread out, if given enough time and distance.

When photons of light “reflect” (another dubious word) off of a mirror, a very tiny portion of the photon absorbs into the mirror. A photon can only reflect off of so many surfaces before it becomes too small to detect (another defeat of the “quantum” theory). Very small bits of the energy of a photon is taken away with each reflection.

And in reality, the “photon energy” doesn’t really “reflect”, but rather gets duplicated. The affectance that propagates from a mirror is not the same affectance that came to it. The significance of that is in the fact that once a photon strikes a mirror, a “phantom photon” is produced that continues through the mirror. A “phantom photon”, is merely a relative vacuum of affectance that proceeds along the same path that the original photon was on.

I’m not sure what you mean by “closed”. If you mean that RM:AO is more solidly defined, disallowing ambiguity and conflation of concepts and words, then yes, I agree. But RM is open to any ontological construction that bothers to exactly define its words and their concepts into a coherent understanding of the universe (or anything else for that matter). RM:AO is one particular ontological understanding of ALL of reality, but most obviously of physics where the simplest of concepts can be examined and pieced together into the larger, more familiar picture known to Science.

Space = “Potential”/“Situation”
Time = “Change”.

They aren’t “preconditions”, but the same things. Together they ARE physical reality.

Half of the only purpose in life.

You have forgotten to answer this question:

Oh, sorry. Yes we could say that, but I prefer to add a little;
“Affectance is ultra-fine electromagnetic radiation forming electromagnetic and gravitational fields, not forces. Existence is that which has affect. And is no more than varied concentrations of subtle affect upon affect, found to concentrate into particles with either more or less potential-to-affect than what the average of open space has.”

More abstractly or philosophically;
Affectance ≡ an amount of subtle affects upon affects or influences upon influences.

And in physics, that amounts to subtle electric potentials causing electromagnetic radiation as well as mass particles with charge potentials that gather into stable molecules of various types.

In psychology, that amounts to subtle perceived hopes and threats causing behaviors and attitudes with charge potentials that gather into stable mindsets of various types.

In sociology, that amounts to subtle interactions causing social movements and ideologies with charge potentials that gather into stable groups of various types.

In economics, that amounts to subtle exchanges causing currency and incentives (values) with charge potentials that gather into stable banks of various types.

Are you sure?

“Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony” IS Life.

“Clarify, Verify, … the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony”,
is half of the purpose, and
“Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony”
is the other half.

Yes, I’m very sure.

Anything that continues doing that, stays alive.

James, “clarify”, “verify”, “instill”, and “reinforce” are four; so “clarify” is a quarter of that unit.

It all depends on how you look at it.
The point of verifying is to clarify that the clarity is actually clear.
The point to reinforcing is to ensure that the instillment (or “memory”) is instilled.

So Life is really only doing those two things, but applying them to its own effort to do those same two things.

So for you there are two parts and each of them is a more meaningful part than all four parts by themselves or even as a whole?