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.
Don’t you think that if to consider Universe space not 3D but 4D this paradox could be understood?
Do you completely agree with the mainstraem-physicist when it comes to interpret the “entropy”?
“Entropy” has multiple meanings. More technically, it refers to;
It’s an issue of further interpretation of the other words; “evolve”, “disorder”, “isolated”, “never”, “state”.
Another common use of the word “entropy” is “the forces that bring disorder”. Many “isolated” systems can decrease their entropy to a stable state, so the second law depends upon at what point one begins the measure. And then “state” of which parts or elements? Although a particle is a stable entity, it is never “isolated”. There are just too many vague concerns involved to commit to a “complete agreement”.
If a particle is not isolated (closed), although it is a stable entity, then tell me what “isolated” means according to RM:AO. Is there anything at all that can be isolated according to RM:AO?
At the time they came up with the laws of thermodynamics, they had no idea that space itself is filled with energy, actually made of energy. They didn’t know that atoms and particles were made of turbulent energy being exchanged with that space. They had no way to know that it is a physical impossibility to truly isolate an atom from the energy all around it (other than thinking more than they did), and thus neither could any object be isolated from such energy exchange. But now in physics, even common physics, they are aware that there is nothing that anyone could do to truly isolate a molecular system from energy exchanges. RM:AO explains exactly why that is so.
I think that I had mentioned that back in 1972, I designed a molecular level device with no mechanical parts that directly broke the second law of thermodynamics by perpetually converting the chaos of heat energy in a molecularity closed system into more orderly gas flow that could be used to create mechanical motion or electric current flow. Other than the converted output, the entire system was a “thermodynamic system” that allowed its internal gases to both increase and decrease their level of entropy. The system could provide either an eternal constant flow of gas from a prior stagnate gas chamber or a regular pressure buildup and release.
The energy that drove the system was simply being absorbed from the ambient environment and sent back out into it. Other than by totally freezing the gas, that system could not be isolated. But even a single atom represents a “system” of perpetual motion and that can never be isolated from the energy of its environment, no matter how “cold” is gets. Isolation from energy flow is impossible.
So something can be isolated from mechanical or molecular interference, but never from energy exchange. No nation actually needs to purchase energy from any other except in the form they want it to be stored in. And with today’s technology, they can change any form into any other on their own.
The following is a small crude anime to display “empty space”, from which nothing can be isolated.
The program generating that wasn’t nearly complete so it is crude and you have to forgive the extra accumulation around the borders. There was a mysterious programming glitch causing that effect, having nothing to do with the emulation of portions of EMR, “Afflates” = ultra-small “charged, virtual-photons”: blue = relative positive, yellow = relative negative, both relative to the total average (coincidentally showing as green).
That is a pic of an area of space perhaps 1000 times small than a single proton presuming that one could actually see EMR in color and at the level. It uses 8000 small afflates, which isn’t anywhere near enough for a good approximation. Anything less than 50,000 at that level isn’t very accurate even when the programming is complete. The pic is merely to relay the general idea of the random affectance in even the smallest bits of space.
And although it might look like the afflates are swirling about, they are actually traveling linearly through a 3D cube of more of themselves, “space”. And I placed a large “stationary positive afflate” in the center just for future reference.
And a “mass particle” forms automatically when that field of afflates gets too dense. The afflates aggregate into a “charged particle” that is constantly exchanging its afflates with the surrounding region yet remaining a stable aggregation, “clump”/“cluster”/“traffic jam”.
1.) Why should it not be possible that energy and matter are isolated from each other? I know that according to RM:AO it is impossible because “existence is that which has affect”.
2.) If it is right that “it is a physical impossibility to truly isolate an atom from the energy all around it (other than thinking more than they did), and thus neither could any object be isolated from such energy exchange”, is it then also not possible to Isolate anything at all according to RM:AO? Are you isolated from me?
Are you sure that that really was a “closed system”?
Yes, but again: If it is right that “it is a physical impossibility to truly isolate an atom from the energy all around it (other than thinking more than they did), and thus neither could any object be isolated from such energy exchange”, then there is only one system possible (which is either an open or a closed one), thus an isolated closed system (isolated from that only one system) is not possible.
But “mechanical or molecular interference” is also energy.
Is that to see in the picture?
Is what “to see”? The mass particle? No.
That is just a crude example display of “empty space”.
But the space is not empty!