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.
âŚnot unless you define ânegativeâ as merely âdisharmoniousâ. 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 âpositiveâ and ânegativeâ 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.
A process is always temporal because of the meaning of the word âprocessâ. Thus all processes are always temporal.
And there are no oppositions? No âhighsâ and âlowsâ as a pair of opposition? No âhigh pointâ and âlow pointâ as a pair of opposition? No âpositive protonâ and ânegative electronâ as a pair of opposition? No âpositive elementâ and ânegative elementâ as a pair of opposition? No âtopâ and âbottomâ as a pair of opposition? No âleftâ and ârightâ as a pair of opposition? âŚ?
Is there some reason you left out the crucial stipulation?
What is your point?
Sorry, a better word would have âtemporaryâ, âexisting for a limited amount of timeâ.
There can be no ânegative existenceâ. What would ânegative existenceâ 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 ânegative cause for changeâ? What would that even conceptually mean? Something either changes or it doesnât.
A negative potential is merely a situation lacking in positive potential relative to a subjectively chosen standard/average/ambient. There is no âoppositionâ involved. The negative is simply where ever the positive isnât. And âzeroâ is merely a mental marker to establish a direction arbiter. One can have opposing directions; âright/leftâ, âup/downâ, âforward backâ. 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 isnât. And some thing either exists or it doesnât.
Highs and lows, like right and left, are subjective and relative to a chosen standard âzero pointâ. In physical reality, there is no âzeroâ 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 âzeroâ.
So when we say âoppositeâ, we can only coherently mean âsubjectively opposite direction to our chosen standard/average/ambientâ.
Yes, there is just a simple syntactical reason. Your sentence means: âIf anything is in harmony, then it is âanentropicââ. Thus being in harmony is being âanentropicâ.
âHarmonyâ is not the same as âharmony both within itself as well as surrounding itselfâ.
Those are two different categories.
âHarmonyâ is the archetype category for all forms of harmony.
âHarmony both within itself as well as surrounding itselfâ is one particular subset/type/subcategory, of harmony within the category, âharmonyâ ⌠and the only one that is anentropic.
What âstructureâ did you want it to have that wasnât there?
Perhaps; âAnything that is in harmony both within itself as well as surrounding itself cannot perish (by definition)â
âAnything 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)â
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.
âEntropyâ has multiple meanings. More technically, it refers to;
Itâs an issue of further interpretation of the other words; âevolveâ, âdisorderâ, âisolatedâ, âneverâ, âstateâ.
Another common use of the word âentropyâ is âthe forces that bring disorderâ. Many âisolatedâ systems can decrease their entropy to a stable state, so the second law depends upon at what point one begins the measure. And then âstateâ of which parts or elements? Although a particle is a stable entity, it is never âisolatedâ. There are just too many vague concerns involved to commit to a âcomplete agreementâ.
If a particle is not isolated (closed), although it is a stable entity, then tell me what âisolatedâ 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 didnât 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 âthermodynamic systemâ 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 âsystemâ of perpetual motion and that can never be isolated from the energy of its environment, no matter how âcoldâ 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 todayâs technology, they can change any form into any other on their own.
The following is a small crude anime to display âempty spaceâ, from which nothing can be isolated.
The program generating that wasnât 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, âAfflatesâ = ultra-small âcharged, virtual-photonsâ: 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 isnât anywhere near enough for a good approximation. Anything less than 50,000 at that level isnât 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, âspaceâ. And I placed a large âstationary positive afflateâ in the center just for future reference.
And a âmass particleâ forms automatically when that field of afflates gets too dense. The afflates aggregate into a âcharged particleâ that is constantly exchanging its afflates with the surrounding region yet remaining a stable aggregation, âclumpâ/âclusterâ/âtraffic jamâ.
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 âexistence is that which has affectâ.
2.) If it is right that âit 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 exchangeâ, 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 âclosed systemâ?
Yes, but again: If it is right that âit 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 exchangeâ, 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 âmechanical or molecular interferenceâ is also energy.
That is why.
Both energy and mass are affects. They are merely different degrees of the same thing. Although even in physics, there is âpotential energyâ and also âactualized energyâ (kinetic, radiant). In RM:AO those are PtA and Affectance (âactualized energyâ). What they call âmassâ is merely a cluster of radiant energy giving the appearance of not radiating because the cluster as a whole is not radiating, although it might be moving (forming âmomentumâ) - âenergy in a clumpâ.
Physical things are only isolated through time and any dispersal that might take place as they propagate to each other. If we do not move from where we are, the constant stream of energy leaving from each of us, in some minuscule way reaches each other. All physical things have less than absolute zero affect upon all other physical things, but only through time.
It is âclosedâ in the way that they meant it. My point was that radiant heat energy, especially on an ultra small sub-particle scale, cannot be blocked. They werenât looking any further down than molecular vibrations, which can be isolated merely by a vacuum of particles. Later they realized that radiant heat energy had to be blocked too, through reflection or absorption. But me, looking on an even much smaller scale than that, I know that there is nothing at all that can block âsub-particle radiationâ or âafflatesâ. It doesnât really reflect (reflecting âsurfacesâ could not be made on that scale. Surfaces donât exist on that scale) and any absorption is temporary. It is the lowest, smallest form of energy and occupies all space regardless of what is in that space. Everything is made of it, so there is no escape from it. And it doesnât stick around, but propagates always, merely getting delayed more or less which is what gives form to particles and objects.
And again, it was only âclosedâ in the way that they meant when they said âclosedâ. In reality, there is no such thing as âabsolutely closedâ.
It is a particular type/form of energy that can be prevented from moving too close. One can stop a baseball from getting to ones head, but one cannot stop affectance radiation from getting anywhere it happens to want to go.
Iâm still not understanding what you are asking. There is no such thing as actual âempty spaceâ. What we call âempty spaceâ isnât empty at all. That is what the anime was showing, âspaceâ is a very busy place.