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!
That is why.
Both energy and mass are affects. They are merely different degrees of the same thing. Although even in physics, there is “potential energy” and also “actualized energy” (kinetic, radiant). In RM:AO those are PtA and Affectance (“actualized energy”). What they call “mass” 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 “momentum”) - “energy in a clump”.
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 “closed” 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 weren’t 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 “sub-particle radiation” or “afflates”. It doesn’t really reflect (reflecting “surfaces” could not be made on that scale. Surfaces don’t 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 doesn’t 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 “closed” in the way that they meant when they said “closed”. In reality, there is no such thing as “absolutely closed”.
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.
I’m still not understanding what you are asking. There is no such thing as actual “empty space”. What we call “empty space” isn’t empty at all. That is what the anime was showing, “space” is a very busy place.
No wonder because I was asking nothing!
How “busy” is the space?
Well that anime shows how busy it is when there is “no-thing” in the space and near a large mass such as Earth.
But if there is a particle in that space (“some-thing”) and falling toward a black-hole, the following would represent how much of that same “noise/busy-ness” would be in that space:
But in that graph, the particle never reaches the black-hole. The “Ambient Density” is a rough measure of how close to the black-hole it is.
The simplicity of RM:AO is that EVERYTHING is simply different concentrations of Affectance and situated such that potentials for altering the amounts and locations of the concentrations arise.
You are saying that „physical reality has no such thing as a force“. What do you think about Newton’s “laws”?
[size=120]1) First law:[/size] When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force. The first law states that if the net force (the vector sum of all forces acting on an object) is zero, then the velocity of the object is constant. Velocity is a vector quantity which expresses both the object’s speed and the direction of its motion; therefore, the statement that the object’s velocity is constant is a statement that both its speed and the direction of its motion are constant. The first law can be stated mathematically as:
[size=120]2) Second law:[/size] F = ma. The vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object. The second law states that the net force on an object is equal to the rate of change (that is, the derivative) of its linear momentum p in an inertial reference frame:
The second law can also be stated in terms of an object’s acceleration. Since Newton’s second law is only valid for constant-mass systems,[16][17][18] mass can be taken outside the differentiation operator by the constant factor rule in differentiation. Thus,
where F is the net force applied, m is the mass of the body, and a is the body’s acceleration. Thus, the net force applied to a body produces a proportional acceleration. In other words, if a body is accelerating, then there is a force on it.
[size=120]3) Third law:[/size] When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body. The third law states that all forces exist in pairs: if one object A exerts a force FA on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts a force FB on A, and the two forces are equal and opposite: FA = −FB.
Well, this is where you need to understand what an ontology is. Every understanding of existence is an ontology. There is either the reality itself, or an ontological understanding of reality. That is all there is. Reality itself has no words or concepts to it. It is simply what it is, no actual forms or properties. An ontology categorizes issues of concern into abstract concepts. The concepts don’t actually exist in physical reality, but in order to communicate and think, the mind chooses such categories, else it could never keep track of anything nor communicate anything.
One common issue of concern can be the concept of pushing or pulling, “force”. In normal life, a person sees himself pushing on something in order to make it change relative location. He “applies force”.
In Newtonian physics, that concept of applying force is given a means of measurement. That was a very useful thing to do (and the only reason you even know his name). But let’s say a different guy, “Jacob”, thought in different terms. Jacob considered such actions, not as “forcing”, but “inspiring movement”. In both cases the person is causing a change. But the concepts are a little different. Newton pushes things to move them. Jacob inspires things to move. Newton implies that Newton is doing all of the action and the object is just receiving his effect. Jacob implies that Jacob merely initiates an action that is carried out by the object. The end result and by all superficial appearances, the two are the same.
So the difference between Newton and Jacob is merely one of the ontology they are using in order to describe the same reality. So in reality, was the object pushed or was it inspired to move?
Newton formed a standard for measuring push. But Jacob didn’t establish a standard for measuring inspiration. Thus common physics used Newtons pushing concept, “force” rather than Jacob’s inspiration concept. But which one is “REAL”?
In a sense they are both real, but you won’t find any physicist talking about objects inspiring other objects to move, but rather forcing them to move. It is just an issue of language and inferred connotations.
In RM:AO, I get into the extremely ultra minuscule happenings even below the level of sub-atomic particles. In such an environment, there are no “things” to be pushing anything or to be pushed by anything. There simply is no pushing or pulling to be found. The concept doesn’t apply. In order for the concept to apply, “things” have to form and then acquire a means to push other things. At that point, I could then talk about “force” as the average end effect of the infinite number of smaller occurrences that brought about that end effect. So “force” is a concept that can apply on a macroscopic scale, but not on a pico-scopic scale.
So in order to stay consistent, because a force makes no sense on the smaller scale, I (like most people) just say that “the larger concept thing doesn’t “really exist”. It just appears that way.”
Science does that same thing on many issues. Science says that “spirits don’t exist”. The reality is that it is just a matter of ontological construct. A “spirit” is merely the interaction of a group of things or the behavior of the group as a whole. When Science says that “spirits don’t exist”, it is saying that there is no interaction within a body. But what do you have if you take out the interactive processes within a body? You have a dead body, exactly what the spiritualist was telling you, the spirit is no longer in the body" = “the interaction processes are no longer in the body”.
So do spirits REALLY exist? It is just a matter of ontological language. In the language of Science, no they don’t. But Science will agree that behaviors exist. You just have to use the right word for the same concept.
Atheists love to proclaim the non-existence of many things so as to promote Secularism when in fact, they are just using a different language and declaring that the other language is fantasy, even though they are actually speaking of the same things.
In the case of forces, something is implied that truly has no place on the ultra low scale of reality. Everything that is attributed to forces is understood without any lower level of force existing. Thus when I say that “forces don’t exist”, I am not merely changing language. I am stating that when you get down to the very bottom of reality and what makes things work, there is nothing that you could rightly call a “force”. And when you raise the level up to the point where you could speak of forces and make a little more sense, nothing new has come into the ontology, no new element to be called “force”, but rather merely a combination of a great many smaller non-force actions, “inspired migrations”.
So in RM:AO ontological understanding language, Jacob was right and Newton was wrong (sort of). Things are “inspired to move”, not really forced. They move because of changes within them, not because of pressures on their “surface”. On the lowest level of reality, there are no “surfaces” either. And that is why nothing can actually be completely isolated from anything else - except through time.
Of course keep in mind, that reality itself doesn’t care what anyone is calling anything. We choose our language for our own subjective issues. Our concepts never “actually exist”. The mind can never grasp actual existence, only a map of categories of affects in the terrain, a terrain that the mind will never actually know, only estimate.
To think about reality one MUST choose an ontology and stick with it. Conflating ontologies creates confusions, conflicts, deceptions and fantasies = “the LACK of understanding reality”. It is the same as trying to speak two languages at the same time. It doesn’t work to communicate. And mixing ontologies doesn’t work to form understanding.
So in RM:AO, forces don’t exist. But that doesn’t mean that in common physics they don’t. And it doesn’t necessarily mean that either is wrong (but it just so happens that forces cannot exist, even in common physics, on the ultra low level of existence).
Newton’s laws were macroscopic principles, not principles of universal physicality. RM:AO is truly universal.
The main problem is a linguistical one, thus a problem of words. But what do you think about the mathematical equations? Are Newton’s equations according to RM:AO as problematic as Einstein’s equations which are perhaps false?
And one more question:
What do you think about the four-dimensional space, also known as Riemann’s continuum (cp. Bernhard Riemann), and about Minkowski’s or Einstein’s world (cp. Hermann Minkowski and Albert Einstein), thus Einstein’s theory of relativity; especially the famous E = mc²?