Universe and Time

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?

Thank you.

Another way to “clarify” and “instill” what I mean is;

A) Clarify or order a situation and then clarify it from multiple perspectives (“verifying”)
B) Instill or affix the situation and then affix it from multiple angles (“reinforcing”)

The multiple perspectives and angles are not necessary for basic life to begin, but necessary to form a life that is strong enough to withstand entropic forces more permanently. And both of those basic concepts apply inwardly and outwardly. Clarify and instill the situation within your mind and the minds around you. And clarify and instill the situation within your body and the environment/society around you.

The process of doing that forms a purifying momentous harmony both within oneself (causing joy within) and expanding around oneself (causing harmony and safety around). Anything that is in harmony both within itself as well as surrounding itself cannot perish (by definition), thus is “anentropic”, also known as “holy”.

The situation surrounding and including one is the “god” that dictates what one can or cannot do, what will and will not happen. By harmonizing that situation, which includes oneself, one is always favored by ones “god”. By making that harmony momentous and expanding it (having the surroundings do the same as one has done to it) that harmony expands the region of ones ultimate authority to be joyfully sustained, ones “loving/supporting god”.

For ones surroundings to perform the same function, the surroundings must include life, because life is what one is doing and thus to do the same function, it must also be life. Thus all life becomes an expanding momentous harmony that is anentropic and immutably persisting. SAM is merely a structure/order for ensuring it. It cannot be done without SAM.

That is actually what Christianity (or at least Jesus) was about. I am just “washing the feet” a bit (clarifying the understanding). But don’t get me wrong. I am neither a prophet that is never mistaken nor a saint who has never sinned. And that is why it is me clarifying it. It doesn’t require a perfect person. It requires a more perfect understanding of the entire situation being improved by the participation of everyone else, whether they be perfect or not. The less perfect must instigate and inspire the more perfect.

The point is to convert the disharmonious into the more harmonious, continually throughout all time, to convert the universe itself into a process of joyous, eternal Life (which includes the foundational physics), not merely a place for life to struggle.

So for you „anentropic harmony“ is a pleonasm, a tautology.

To convert the “negative charge” into a “positvie charge”?

Nooo… not at all. An anentropic harmony is a harmonic process that compensates for ALL interference, thus sustaining itself despite interference. Almost all harmonic processes are temporal, requiring a compatible environment. Anentropic harmony provides for a compatible environment as a part of its process.

…not unless you define “negative” as merely “disharmonious”. Harmony requires highs and lows and thus relatively positives and negatives. To maintain a harmony is to maintain both the required positive and negative elements involved. An atom is an anentropic entity having a harmony consisting of a positive proton and a negative electron. It could not exist without both. Life has both “positive” and “negative” elements (high points and low points in its harmony) as the make of its process and must maintain both. Dying, or not living, is the process of not maintaining some required element of ones make and thus is entropic.

“Anything that is in harmony … is ‘anentropic’”. Your words, James.

A process is always temporal because of the meaning of the word “process”. Thus all processes are always temporal.

And there are no oppositions? No “highs” and “lows” as a pair of opposition? No “high point” and “low point” as a pair of opposition? No “positive proton” and “negative electron” as a pair of opposition? No “positive element” and “negative element” as a pair of opposition? No “top” and “bottom” as a pair of opposition? No “left” and “right” as a pair of opposition? …?

Is there some reason you left out the crucial stipulation?
What is your point?

Sorry, a better word would have “temporary”, “existing for a limited amount of time”.

There can be no “negative existence”. What would “negative existence” even mean to you? Less than not there at all?

A potential is a situation that provides for (causes) a change. One can have zero cause for change (conceptually) but how could there ever be a “negative cause for change”? What would that even conceptually mean? Something either changes or it doesn’t.

A negative potential is merely a situation lacking in positive potential relative to a subjectively chosen standard/average/ambient. There is no “opposition” involved. The negative is simply where ever the positive isn’t. And “zero” is merely a mental marker to establish a direction arbiter. One can have opposing directions; “right/left”, “up/down”, “forward back”. But a potential or an existence (affectance object) cannot be objectively negative, because there can be no negative existence or negative ability to cause a change. There is either a potential or there isn’t. And some thing either exists or it doesn’t.

Highs and lows, like right and left, are subjective and relative to a chosen standard “zero point”. In physical reality, there is no “zero” and certainly nothing less than zero. Harmony, whether anentropic or not, requires highs and lows, rights and lefts, forwards and backwards, but only a subjectively conceptual “zero”.

So when we say “opposite”, we can only coherently mean “subjectively opposite direction to our chosen standard/average/ambient”.

Yes, there is just a simple syntactical reason. Your sentence means: “If anything is in harmony, then it is ‘anentropic’”. Thus being in harmony is being “anentropic”.

Emmm… no.

“Harmony” is not the same as “harmony both within itself as well as surrounding itself”.
Those are two different categories.

“Harmony” is the archetype category for all forms of harmony.
“Harmony both within itself as well as surrounding itself” is one particular subset/type/subcategory, of harmony within the category, “harmony” … and the only one that is anentropic.

You mean your sentences do not have any syntactical structure?

What “structure” did you want it to have that wasn’t there?

Perhaps;
“Anything that is in harmony both within itself as well as surrounding itself cannot perish (by definition)”
“Anything that is in a harmony that is both a harmony within itself as well as in harmony with whatever is surrounding itself, cannot perish (by definition)”

I did not want a syntactical structure because a syntactical structure is given anyway, unless it is invalid, false.

Please tell me then what the exact definitions of “harmony” and “anentropy” are according to RM:AO.

Harmony == motion with a limitation on the degree of disruptive conflict.
Anentropy == the balance between entropy and anti-entropy, zero (or near zero) disruptive conflict.

Anentropy does not require internal harmony. But eternal internal harmony requires anentropy.