Universe and Time

You spoke of the Einstein era as if it had ended.

When will the “new religion” be complete? First of all they had to create a “new theology” because they had to create some gods, divinities, godhoods. But after that they had to create that “new religion”, and that has more practical aspects that we have been noticing for so long. Spirit is a taboo, although science is not possible at all without spirit. They are forcing more and more in their religious system. But obviously it is inevitable. The “new religion” is not finished yet. There is going to come something more to us.

Well, I am a bit of what they call “a time traveler”, being one who projects into the future, sees what is there, and then talks about his “experiences”. In my case, in order to get around all of the noise of the past and present, I chose to just jump over the mountains of conflated concerns; Science, Religions, Philosophies,… I then worked my way back and am still in process of seeing where in the future’s history, man currently is.

Timing or time measurement is the most difficult endeavor of any prophet. Even Jesus couldn’t divine and deal with its issues and he would be far better at it than I.

Also realize that the toe doesn’t instantly know when the brain has incurable cancer. The body still functions, somewhat. The body still tries to add to and enhance its life. But to someone like me and many in the past, the person is “already dead. The body just don’t know it.” I see the cancer in Relativity and quantum fantasy physics. So to me, the “new-age religion” is already dead, it’s body just doesn’t know it. And it still has use, so it isn’t “entirely dead”, yet.

Similarly, as discussed in the Machine-age, SAM, and Information Distribution threads, there is a discernible cancerous end to the current globalist mindset. But the timing of such is ridiculously hard to define or predict. Just as particles and clouds have no surfaces with which to measure true sizes, exact times of their encounters with others, social movements and mentalities are even more so. Everything is a consequence of prior events and if one event is contingent upon merely 10 prior events, each with a 95% percent accurately predicted timing, the accuracy of the contingent event is merely 60%. And that is assuming that a great deal of data was known and accounted for.

When was Abram’s “new-religion” complete? Has it ever been?

There is only one religion that CAN ever be “complete”. And that one is necessarily based on a “coherent, comprehensive, and relevant” ontology (aka the very requirements of “Truth”). So far, I have found only one of those.

The current mindset is to redefine and juggle the books for the current Secular religion so as to attempt to reshape it into the inevitable while maintaining control over the Earth. If they redefine things sufficiently and don’t lose too many reputation points, they can become what I have been calling RM:AO, but under their own name, and thus inevitable. It is a word game in trying to grab the throne of the Emperor God-king.

But their problem with that is that RM:AO:SAM doesn’t allow anyone to have control over all the Earth. Thus they will inevitably fail. But it will most probably take a long time for the body of Man to know it.

The reasons why beliefs, thoughts, theories, metaphysical ontologies, philosophies of physics are different refers to the difference of cultures. Two examples of that much different that they are antipodes are the Apollonian culture and the Faustian culture. The humans of the Apollonian Culture always interpret physical bodies staticallly, the humans of the Faustian culture dynamically. So it is no wonder that in the Faustian culture a “Faust” came to the idea to interpret the dynamics (and no longer the rest position, the statics) as the normal state of a physical body and to postulate forces as the cause of this dynamics.

Newtons physcal theory is one of these Faustian physical theories, although there had been many more Faustian physical theories before Newton, especially those of Johann(es; Georg) Faust himself, or of Galileo Galilei, or of Johannes Kepler, and also after Newton.

Yes, I find it interesting at times how cultures and genetics play into language and preferred ontological structures throughout the world. The Chinese have a very distinctively different memory method that strongly affected their language and culture. With their famous I Ching, they proclaimed that all things were either fixed or changing and developed a coded written language in an attempt to use that thought. In reality, there is no “fixed” but merely degrees of changing.

The Middle East tends to passionately extrapolate simple ideas to simple extremes. The East extrapolates complex ideas to complex extremes. And the Far East extrapolate complex ideas into simple extremes (much like me). I have always been able to very quickly understand the Chinese mindset and understand why it is that way for them. They more instinctively see “the bigger picture” due to their visual memory.

The West and North have interesting differences as well, but not quite so distinct. The North West (the Anglos/Brits) sense less immediate passion, giving them a very specific mental attribute. Most distinctions can be attributed to merely memory type and passion. Of course, the aggressive nature of their early thoughts plays into polarizing their future culture and their eventual gene pool. Today it is all being scrambled by the hubris of modern Man.

I worked a little on that emulation program and fixed most of the border issues, although for some odd reason, the afflates now tend to gather more into the lower right corner even though they should be random. I don’t know what that’s about, but this is merely a simple display. I took out most of the afflate interaction code so that I could render an emulation within a reasonable time. The amount of calculating required to properly adjust the vectors for these 64,000 afflates is ridiculous and takes many hours just for a few seconds of video.

This one is a little better representation of “empty space” presuming it to be visible. In merely the distance from your eye out one inch, millions of cubes of that displayed space is traveled by every tiny bit of light that enters your eye. You can’t see any of that because it is what both you and the light is made of. You can only be affected by disturbance in the ambient, such as a photon or particle, thus the ambient is always “invisible” to you.

And something to keep in mind is that literally ALL space is made of that same thing. It is impossible for any space to exist without it. The infinite universe has always had that going on in all locations and always will.

In relativity low density space, the kind that you can clearly see through, those afflates have extremely little interaction with each other. But if the density gets very high, their interaction results in substantial slowing down (although never actually stopping) and creating anti-entropy “traffic jams” more commonly known as “inertial particles”.

Think for a moment on the fact that you are literally made of nothing but what that emulation is displaying merely varying in concentration from point to point in your space. A human is merely some uncountable number of those “empty space” cubes stacked such that from one cube region to another, there is a little density variation responsible for atomic structure and interaction.

You are very literally no more than a bunch of turbulent noise in space. :open_mouth: :confused:
:laughing:

Oh and speaking of thermodynamics, I ran across this little quip;

In the case of affectance in space, what they are calling “the attractor state” is higher change density (higher affectance density). Higher affectance density causes automatic ordering of the chaos into a particle, reducing entropy = “anti-second law of thermodynamics”.

Note which word is chosen: “Attractor”! - That’s Faustian.

Remember:

|=> #

|=> #

|=> #

But the word “attractor” is a misnomer (much like the word “force”). There is very rarely any actual attracting going on. The systems that they are talking about involve coincidental clinging or merging over time. Nothing is being “drawn in” or “attracted to”, but rather merely delayed, bonded, or trapped once in proximity. A glue doesn’t attract a fly, but rather traps a fly. They would have been more appropriately named “Trapping systems”.

I suspect that the idea of “attraction” should only be used concerning conscious entities, although in a simple-minded materialistic sense, it wouldn’t really apply there either. Life itself could be called an “Attractor System”, because it seeks out (thus is “attracted to”) and absorbs nutrients (traps), grows, and spreads.

A high density region of affectance delays coincidental propagating affectance that is passing through it, thus the affectance density increases toward a maximum density. Nothing is being attracted, but such a system is what they chose to call “an attractor”.

Most attractor systems have no attraction in them. And they all break the “Second Law of Thermodynamics”. Because that “law” was proven to be easily broken, they reworded the law many times in an effort to make it a truth (as I have mentioned before). It is actually a mere tendency. They insist on keeping it a “law” merely out of religious devotion. I have personally been attacked back in the 1970’s by a professor for denying the holiness of the “LAW” (and many times online).

Have you “merely” been threatened or even been physically attacked?

Perhaps it would be better anyway, not to speak of physical “laws”, but of physical rules. But on the other hand, what would be changed? after that change? The words would have got a different meaning - little by little -, not more.

“Socially attacked”, not physically beaten up. I wasn’t raised in a Chinese or Arab country. Although a physical beating might have been far better in the long run. My conflict with the second “LAW” is what led to me inventing that “perpetual motion machine of the second type” that I had mentioned, “KD”. KD is an “attractor system”, but again, there is no “attracting” involved, merely “trapping”. The KD device traps molecules into a higher pressure chamber and then releases them, then traps them again. then releases them again. Through each cycle, thermal energy is being absorbed by the molecules and then converted to mechanical energy when released. That kind of thing pisses off the globalists because the “energy crisis” was a paramount false flag. Anyone suggesting a viable solution was to be silenced.

A more modern day “social attack” is this;
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LL9Jnos-GA[/youtube]

That is why it is important to document “Definitional Logic” using “Proper Logical Presentation”. The words being used as well as the logical reasoning are all explicated in the documents. So even if the words change, the older and intended usage is documented along with the reasoning. Think how different the entire world would be if the Bible had been formed with a lexicon appended. Thousands of years of arguing and conflict would have been avoided and mistakes corrected.

And another small bit about the formation of the universe … “How God Creates”;

And even “Absolute Material Law”:

“Laws are actually material entities and actually nothing else really exists at all” - does that mean that you think there is merely matter, thus no spirit, merely material reality, thus no spiritual reality, or (in other words) that spirit reality and material reality are the same, and we have merely different words for them, so that matter and spirit are either spirit or matter?

Matter and spirit are actually just different concentrations of the same thing. “Mass and energy” are of the same substance, merely more and less concentrated. That substance is “Affectance” in an infinite variety of concentrations or “affect upon affect” and nothing more, also known as the “Changing of the changing”. The only thing being affected or changed is the affecting or changing. There exists no other substance at all.

The “law” is that which is affected least, yet affects most. Laws come in degrees/strengths, as do affects. The law that never changes (is least affected) is that which is the “most material”, “matters most”, is “most solid”, has the “most affect”. What we call “substance” is the application of the law. And the less the law is applied, the less it exists. And without the law, there is no existence. The application of the law is existence. But it is only the law that is applying itself. Thus the “law” is the application of the law and thus IS the existence. Without the law, there is no existence and without existence, there is no law.

It is a somewhat unnecessary philosophical point unless you happen to want to know the infinite details of the make of existence. The most extreme existence is the immutable law applying itself to the most extreme degree.

That is exactly what I meant.

What is your definition of “law” then?

By the way:

What do you think about the following classification?:

There are mathematics, logic (philosophy), linguistics, semiotics on the one side which is more spiritual than material, and there are physics, chemistry, biology, economy (incl. sociology and others) on the other side which is more material than spiritual. So we have:

|Mathematics||Logic (Philosophy)||Linguistics||Semiotics| “versus” |Physics||Chemistry||Biology||Economy (Sociology a.o.)|
This is not merely meant in the sense of scientific disciplines, but also and especially in the sense of existence at all.

There are two sides of existence: a more spiritual than material and a more material than spiritual which are different concentrations of the same thing and interconvertible (cp. mass and energy).

And the following is a crude emulation of what the space inside and immediately outside of a space ship (near non-existence) would look like (assuming that you could see EMR) if that ship was traveling at 0.8 the speed of light.

If you notice, there is an observable direction of flow but otherwise it looks the same at the prior “still frame”. That effect plays into answering the Stopped Clock Paradox (I don’t know what that dark corner is about :confused: ).

Any light approaching the ship must travel through that “moving space”. Light reflecting off of a high speed ship will not reflect at the same reflection angle as normal. The effect of that will be that the ship appears to be located where it isn’t.

To me it is obviously a mere issue of focus. The spiritualists are focused on behaviors and the materialists are focused on objects. Both often claim that the other doesn’t “really” exist. But it is a false dichotomy.

My earlier point is that what we think of as “immutable law”, is merely the extreme of what we call “matter”. It isn’t terribly relevant to know that, but it merges the much believed separation between the “divine” and the “mortal” or the mental/conceptual and the physical.

And btw, as always, it might be worth noting that concern applies to psychological, sociological, and economic principles as well. :sunglasses:

The reverse is also true.

Yes.

Why false? Because for you dichotomies do not exist, right?

But actually a law is spiritual.

So again: What is your definition of “law”?

What is your definition of “spiritual”?
The word “spirit” is often given two meanings;
A) principle of behavior or its design, process, or conceptual form
B) behavior itself, the processing in action

The behavior itself (or “process”) has size, therefore is physical. The principle of behavior has no size, therefore is conceptual. But both forms have affect. The principle is that which has affect yet no size of its own. For a principle to gain physical existence, something must be “obeying/following the principle”. The more behavior there is obeying the principle, the more represented the principle is in physical reality and is therefore “larger” and more powerful. The principle becomes physical and material by being obeyed.

Similarly, the concept of a dog has no size to it. And if there were no physical dogs in the universe, the concept would have no representation in physical reality. A physical dog would not exist. The concept of a dog becomes a physical existence when there is an instance of “dog” being physically represented.

All principles are obeyed by at least some minuscule portion of the infinite universe. But there is one principle that is obeyed by the entire universe at all times. There could be no universe without it. And even though the principle in itself has no size, because literally the entire universe is obeying it, it is “all-powerful” with the ultimate and infinite affect. Thus that principle is very physical and “real”.

Looking again at that graph;

The one principle that is always obeyed, is in the upper-right corner on that graph. The universe itself is its “embodiment”.

So laws are physical when being obeyed, but merely conceptual when not obeyed.

Communism and socialism are concepts, and have physical existence only when obeyed. Jesus has physical existence as long as his principles are being generally obeyed, even if not very well. My principles are generally obeyed by literally all living things, just not very well. Homosapian cannot “see” (mentally) my principles and thus cannot obey them consciously very well. Yet without them, there could be no life. The better he comes to see them, the more he will obey them, because he will be them. And as we are discussing on the other thread, if Man doesn’t wake up enough to them, the machines will (read my signature).

First of all I give you a dictionary example:

Also according to Langenscheidt “geistig” means “intellectual, mental, (incorporeal) spiritual”, “geistlich” means “spiritual, … ecclesiastical, clerical,” and “geistvoll” means “witty”.

The word that fits best to “spiritual”: “geistig”, and “geistig” means “intellectual, mental, (incorporeal) spiritual”.

So my favourite definition of “spiritual” is “intellectual, mental”.

That is very different to what the dictionaries “say”, for example Langenscheidt again:

Also according to Langenscheidt “Geist” means “spirit, (Verstand) mind, intellect”, “Verstand” means “understanding, intelligence, intellect, brains”, “Sinn” means “sense”, and “Temperament” means “temperament, … spirits”.

The word that fits best to “spirit”: “Geist”, and “Geist” means “spirit, (Verstand) mind, intellect”.

|=> #

|=> #

Note: “Anorganic things” mean merely “physical-chemical things”.

No. That is option (A).
“Incorporeal” resolves to it “having no size” and “nothing obeying it”.
A thought/design/idea/concept/principle/law that has nothing obeying it, has zero affect and thus has zero physical existence.