RM = Thermodynamics?

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
21

That pretty much hits the nail on the head.

RM merely proposes that one define his concepts, stay coherent, leave things open for rational debate, and empirically verify things when possible. And that is what science originally loosely did before its thorough corruption. And the only reason it made progress. But then the religion issues got into the game. The first effort was to “destroy Babylon else they will be able to do anything. Confound their language, spread the plagues, and remove their ability to think” - the post WW2 war on intellectuals and science leading to retardation and psychosis. That incentive wasn’t entirely unfounded, but is the desperate act of weak minds and strong egos. There are better ways to handle such problems of groups trying to use their intellect to conquer the world. And being used in this case, merely created a new anti-religion religion (which was predictable). The story "The Matrix" is that story concerning the Zionists and the scientists (“Systemists”).

But the issue with Relativity is merely that RM resolves it to be a handy tool (along with quantum mechanics) with which to get pretty accurate predictions. But Relativity is provably NOT a universal truth. Reality itself is NOT relative. And reality is NOT quantumized either. Both notions were cast onto the mountain of science so as to bedevil and confound it. So how did the systemists respond in defense? They just made them into the new secularist religion (it’s probably what I would have done if I had no better plan).

And then to further the drama, the systemists/scientists, developed literal machines to do the thinking that the Zionists had crippled. That move has now become the most catastrophic advent in all of human history. And it is time to stop competing for world domination by going beyond what the “Babylon” systemists are thinking with their machines as well as the Zionists with their “control it by destroying it” ancient social technology.

RM allows for very quick development of understanding that exceeds the presumptions of the players sufficiently for them to not only go beyond where they each were, but also to see that world domination is a death trap for all participants. In a sense, RM allows for one to “see the future” of their games even more than science or religion.

It’s time to grow past the ego-centrism of God-wannabes.

22

Yeah. It involved wondering if you ever have a thought that isn’t about a conspiracy to usurp global authority.

23

Ha.

24

Can you name any significant thing that Man has done since the advent of the “word of God” that wasn’t either an attempt to dominate the world or defend against someone else trying to dominate the world?

Today almost everything the USA does is all about “National Security” against the evil “terrorist” who seem to always be either Islamics or more often simply American citizens. And of course Islam is trying to defend against the evil Western imperialism as are those American citizens. And is founded by the Department of Homeland Security a legally required to be conspiracy (and paranoid extremists). Meanwhile Israel laughs all the way to the bank … oh yeah, they ARE the bank founded by the conspiracy known as “usury” (lending out more money than you really had).

Did you really think that the USA gained its independence from England without conspiring to do so? Or that England wasn’t conspiring to prevent it? Nations are not formed without conspiring to form them against anyone preferring not to.

Did you really think that the world wars came about by accidental happenstance?

Although there have been an uncountable number, this is a very shortened list of proposed “world empires” (not to mention at all the number that never succeeded):
British Empire
Qing Dynasty
Russian Empire
Mughal Empire
Japanese Empire
Northern Song Dynasty
Second French colonial empire
Mongol Empire
Ming Dynasty
Tang Dynasty
Southern Song Dynasty

Roman Empire
Spanish Empire
Mauryan Empire
German Colonial Empire
Earlier Zhao Dynasty
Umayyad Caliphate
Dutch Empire
Yuan Dynasty
Han Dynasty
Sui Dynasty
Austro-Hungarian Empire
Italian Empire
Achaemenid Empire, Iran
Western Jin Dynasty
Abbasid Caliphate
Rashidun Caliphate
Ottoman Empire
First French colonial empire

If you are not conquering the world, you are defending against the conquering of the world. Today they call themselves “Democratic Socialists”. Socialism itself cannot exist without conspiracy always at hand and under foot. Propaganda is inherently conspiratorial. What in your world hasn’t been founded on and by conspiracy?

Even the original Science was merely an effort to escape the inherent conspiracy of cultism, only to later become its former enemy. The only innocents of conspiracy are those on the very bottom of society being the dupes conspired upon.

The hope for and of the world is to one day have a world without conspiracy. Of course a little not-conspiring would help.

25

There are two hostile groups within one „society“: b the powerful one of the rulers (controllers[/b]), and b the powerless one of those who are ruled (controlled)[/b]. Roughly calculated 1% are powerful and 99% are powerless.

(1) Powerful 1% vs. b Powerless 99%[/b].

Main principle: „divide et impera“ („divide and conquer“) „obey or suffer“.
Conspiracy: yes no or merely partly.
Conspiracy theories: yes no or merely partly.
Probability of success: high (ca. 70-90%) low (ca. 10-30%).
Degree of disunity: low high.
Classes: one (upper class) one (lower class) or two (lower and middle class).
Degree of wealth: very rich poor (lower class), mildly rich (middle class).

You see that conspiracy and conspiracy theories are mainly the issue of the powerful 1% and not of the powerless 99%.

A) Those of the 1% who assume someone who is a member of the 99% to be a conspiracy theorist support the conspiracy and conspiracy theory of the 1%.
B) Those of the 99% who assume someone who is a member of the 99% to be a conspiracy theorist support the conspiracy and conspiracy theory of the 1%.
C) Those of the 1% who assume someone who is a member of the 1% to be a conspiracy theorist reveal the conspiracy and conspiracy theory of the 1%.
D) Those of the 99% who assume someone who is a member of the 1% to be a conspiracy theorist reveal the conspiracy and conspiracy theory of the 1%.

  • And the latter two (see C) and D)) are living dangerous because being hunted by the 1% and a great part of the 99%.

Someone who denies conspiracy denies the power of the powerful 1% or even the existence of the powerful 1%, … and in the extreme case this someone denies even any difference between living beings - b.t.w.: that is the reason why it is so easy for egalitarians and similar totalitarians to have success with their rhetoric and methods of catching their victims.

26

And those who deny conspiracy support the conspirators. To deny the theft is to hide the thief. Thus from above the command is to deny conspiracy … “just call it by a different name. That is all it takes”.

The Catholic church, or more exactly Jesus, was an attempt to conspire against conspiracies (such as St Patrick driving the “snakes” out of Ireland). But the Catholic Church left out one tiny but critical detail, and that is all it takes for the dike to eventually break open to the flood. So a thousand years later, the flood of conspiracies rose again.

It is the oldest war of all wars, that between Truth and Deception to reign over Man and all life.

Atoms do not conspire against other atoms so as to maintain their existence. Cells in a body do not conspire against other cells in order to form a body. Microbes and insects do not conspire against anything nor do small animals. But when it comes to packs of animals, conspiracy begins to find its way into the animal kingdom, such as wolf and lion packs instinctively arranging a trap for their prey. Man being tempted by the power of deception and not quite bright enough to see beyond it, becomes the great conspirator of all conspirators, a conspiracy of conspiracies conquering the world and reigning in darkness (“Lord of the Rings” - the 1% of the 1%).

But it isn’t that the war cannot end. It can end and will end.

The Catholic or actually any legitimate Christian organization could bring the end to that war almost over night … if they only knew how. All they would have to do is include what was left out of their scriptures. That is why Christianity is hated so very much by those depending on constant conspiracies. But of course having lost their leadership, they aren’t going to do that.

That which is hidden from life is the natural adversary to all life (which is why you have eyes and hears), but the further distant it is, the safer life is from it. There is a means to bring an end to all conspiracies without being one yourself. It involves the necessary limitation of information distribution and authority distribution. And that is where SAM comes into the game. SAM leaves nothing out. The sooner, the better for all concerned.

27

I will address my problem with RM here rather than in the thread about Uranus.

The fundamental problem is that all RM:AO does is propose that there are ultra minuscule particles, without any cause except ‘they have to be there for they can not not exist’. (hence, they are ‘discrete objects’ - necessary, not theoretical mathematical derivations of proven realities). This is then presented as the cause of all causes;

  1. Reality exists, therefore reality exists.
  2. Reality is affectance
  3. Reality is dividable in infinitesimal units which in their infinitesimality retain the fundamental properties of existence.

3 is not given, and does not follow from 1 or 2.
2 is not clear. What is ‘affectance’? Now it has been defined as ‘very small electrmagnetism’.
Okay. So what is electromagnetism? The answer is no doubt “Affectance”.

Nothing is being said here. The quality ‘affectance’ is not actually a quality. It could be replaced with ‘existence’. PtA = PtE, potential to affect is potential to exist.

PtA is not itself existence. It is the potential to exist. And yet it is the very substance of the supposed RM universe.

28

Affectance is NOT minuscule “particles”. Where did you come up with that?
You can say minuscule “impulses” or “waves” of affect.
RM:AO is NOT “RM:Quantum Ontology”.

Your (1) is your own invention. I have never said anything like that.

My ontology begins with the declaration of definition that;
1) Existence ≡ that which has affect; the set of all having affect; All affectance.

And that is similar to your (2) except that I am declaring it as a rational definition for existence. Without defining what it means to exist, an ontology can’t really be complete or coherent. So the first thing to do is give meaning to what it is that the ontology is all about, “existence”.

Your (3) needs to be rewritten as;
3) Affectance is infinitely divisible (non-discreet, no “particles” involved).

Affect is the fundamental property of physical existence as per RM:AO definition. If you or anyone wants to use a different definition for existence, that is fine by me. My ontology, “RM:AO”, uses the definition provided.

As it turns out after a great deal of derivation and emulation, what I call “affectance” in RM:AO is what the science of physics has been calling ultra minuscule “electromagnetic pulses”. But RM:AO isn’t merely about physics. The Affectance involved in RM:AO pertains to ALL affects regardless of the subject of study, such as; economics, psychology, physiology, and sociology. The other fields of study in science do not use the term “electromagnetic” but each can relate easily to the concept of “affectance” - “that which has affect, influence, or brings change”.

The word “Affectance” is already common in infant and child psychology and means the exact same thing, merely specifically applied to affects upon infants. RM:AO uses the term as a universal concept, not specific to any particular field of study.

Affectance refers to that property of being able to affect, influence, or cause change. That can also be called a “quality”. I don’t really care which term you choose to use.

A potential, any potential, is merely a situation that brings an effect, a resultant change. In physics, a static electric field (measured in units of Volts) is referred to as the “electric potential” or “voltage” because it is that electric potential that causes the electric current known as electricity.

But what is not commonly known is that such a potential is not in itself a physical substance but rather a physical situation that yields a change in the situation (an affect). The changing of the situation is the actual physical substance of the universe. How that changing is spread throughout space determines the potential at every point throughout space. At each instance of time, the entire situation of the universe, due to each potential at every point, causes the entire universe to slightly change, to be affected. All existence is always slightly changing.

29

That makes no difference; ‘things’, is what you propose. ‘wavelets’ - discrete entities. An impulse, defined as such, is a limited and defined object. This makes it discrete, and very different from something infinitely divisible.

Yes, but this definition does not satisfy me. One of the reasons for that:
Having affect requires something to have affect on, to be affected.
One could equally say ‘existence is to be affected’.

Who is to say that all affected existence also affects, and that all affecting existence is also affected?
You’d need to prove that to absolute certainty for your proposal to be valid.

Another problem here; you work with infinitesimals, then an infinitesimal must in turn be infinitely divisible?

Again, ultra minuscule is not infinitely divisible or divided.

That goes without saying.

30

I can’t think of anything called a “wave” that infers discreteness or particulates. And even though water and air are made of relatively discreet molecules, the waves are not made of those molecules. A water wave is made of the height of the water and a sound wave is made of the compression of the space between the molecules, both non-discreet quantities involving length, another infinitely divisible element. Both are commonly represented by a mathematical sine wave. The sine function only produces as discreet of quantities as are fed into it.

So calling something a “wave” does not imply any discreetness, quite the opposite. And on top of that, I have repeatedly stated that affectance is infinitely divisible, thus removing any notion of discreet particulates underlying its make. Affectance is not made of varying distances between lesser particulates. Affectance is made merely of more affectance. There is nothing beneath it. Affectance is the fundamental substance of the entire universe.

Satisfying you is not relevant to its correctness or logical soundness. You are free to think of existence how ever you choose. Your choice doesn’t make my choice wrong.

And you are right in that you could say that existence is made of the property of “being affected”, but that would not change anything. The very concept of “affect” implies an affecter and an affected. So no matter which you choose to declare to be the make of existence, the other is inherently included.

As I have explained many times, the nature of existence is “affect upon affect” = “affectance”. And there is no other substance.

The ontological construct does that. In the construct, affectance is all that exists and thus whatever is affecting is the only thing around to be affected, thus “affect upon affect”. There is no other substance throughout the entire ontology.

Not really, because that conclusion is not necessary for the construct of the ontology. It is by rigorous, detailed emulation of the fundamental principles that such a conclusion can be proven to be all that is necessary to know about any space throughout the universe. The usefulness or rationality of an ontology is not a prerequisite for the validity of it.

I define;
1 Infinitesimal = 1/infinity.

And yes, 1 infinitesimal can also be divided, as I have explained many times;

1 infinitesimal / infinity = 1 / (infinity^2) = 1 infinitesimal^2

And any normal algebraic expressions still apply, such as adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing real quantities to those infinitesimals and their powers or to each other. All of the principles of mathematics still applies.

“Ultra-minuscule” is a relative term, meaning compared to you the impulses are ultra-small in their variety. It is not a declaration of any minimum size, but rather the inference of a maximum size. “Ultra-minuscule” is not a discreet size any more than “small” or “large”.

Then as long as there is a situation of the universe, potentials will always be a measure of that situation and exist as such.

31

Air waves and water waves and sound waves are indeed descriptions of a particular substances behavior. These substances are however identifyable as discrete entities; molecules, atoms. (Waves having a certain amplitude and wavelength are discrete as well, but that is perhaps not as easy to work with here, so lets ignore that now.) A photonic waveform however does refer more directly to a particilar itself. To which is the affectance wavelet more alike?

If a waveform is the ultimate form in which affectance is definable, then it is hard to escape attributing an ontological reality to it. It must exist.

It might help here if you would shed some light on how you perceive the maximum rate of propagation. What causes this limit?

32

When you decide to make that into a contention, expect to be incorrect about that too.

I have explained that before and will do so again. But first answer a question for me.

You know that speed or velocity is measured in length over time. Man somewhat arbitrarily invented a measure called “meters”. He found an object and declared that the object is “one meter long”. Similarly, he somewhat arbitrarily invented a measure for time called a “second”. He found a particular duration and declared it to be “one second long”. Then Man presumed to divide his invented length by his invented time and called it “speed”; “v = m/s”.

So what we have now is two invented concepts and a third wherein one is divided by the other. But they are not of the same type. How many lengths of duration can one divide a length of distance into? How many seconds are in a meter? It is like dividing apples by oranges. How many oranges are in an apple?

But despite these arbitrarily and not entirely coherent mental inventions, he declares them to be TRUTH, “facts”. He says that it is a fact that light travels at a particular speed. By modern materialistic and atheistic standards, if one cannot touch or see something, it doesn’t exist. One can see an object that someone has declared to be equal to one meter long. But can anyone see the meter itself? One can watch a duration that someone has declared to be one second long. But can anyone actually see the second itself? No one can see any of them. Yet Science is very largely founded upon their real existence.

How can anyone say these things called meters, seconds, and speeds actually exist at all?

You have asked a related question. So let’s get on common ground before we resolve an answer.

33

That is all very evasive. I am tempted to set you straight here but I now suspect (suspected, this is now confirmed) that this sort of reply meant to be a distraction.
As soon as RM needs to be explicated beyond generalities in order to advance the explanation, it is abandoned as a basis for your words.

I have been down the rabbit hole of RM before, and I am posing the same questions again. I know we have discussed all this at length before, but you were ultimately inconclusive, despite a year or so of trying to get you to become concrete, involving MM in it to this end. You did not offer anything concrete then, and I have learned from that. I engaged anew, strategically this time, and see that you begin your maneuvering precisely at the moment where the questions are addressed at the problem directly. Snap!

I consider the validity of RM:AO to be disproven, unless you come up with direct, concrete answers to all my direct and concrete questions.

34

It is bullshit for you to be evasive when asked a direct question and then accuse your chosen opponent of being evasive.

But it is typical of someone who has no confidence to support his desire to attack - typical new-age, childish, and cowardly ranting.

I answered one of yours and told you that I will (again) answer your next. But first a little backbone from you. Either answer the question or renege.

35

Case closed then.

The nature of light is of course the central issue.

36

I will now present my own case.

Light is a true absolute, because it is wholly passive.
its substance relies on the limit prescribed by the nature of the universe; c is the actual ‘physical’ ontological limit of the universe itself. Therefore it bends to the greatest masses; the limit must yield to the activity.
The ontology of the universe is thus dual; Einstein and Tesla - metaphysics and consequentialism. The principle and its implication; epistemology and ontology.

In electrical circuitry, the speed of light has taken on the form of an interior limit. A collapsed photon becomes a self-limiting object, a self-valuing - it begins to acquire physical entity by becoming part of other entities. Within physics, this is the realm of ontology; causality.

What is converted into mass is the velocity of light; that by which it had been the measure of the physical order. It now becomes measure only to itself.

We can not observe light. Light is passive, the energy that comes in its form is indeed slowing it down, it slows down by the measure of the active force that it circumscribes. Light is the circumference of gravity, light is valuing and gravity is ‘self-valuing’; that which interprets the light into its own terms.

Light does not exist “of itself”. But it is all “there is”. Being exists “of itself”, but it is never “there” (Heidegger). It is in flux. Light is not flux; it is absolute. Light is Relativity; it adapts with absolute perfection to circumstance. It is called into existence by being destroyed.

37

Although you got that thought from me (surely to deny that), the way you present it and the rest of your post is incoherent, egocentric babble.

38

I have got nothing from you but an introduction to the greatest liar I ever encountered. Of course this does not come from you, it refutes the whole of your theory, but you have, unlike MM and I wh o thought you meant all of it - , apparently not thought your theory through - in this case the coherence of what you claim with what you call egocentric babble is proof enough of, ultimately, the profane dimness of your wits.

39

As much as James will shit on it - ah but what flowers spring from shit! - I tell the truth; the idea of c as the physical limit to the universe has been consistent since I was in my mid teens. When I was seven or eight years my father began to teach me nuclear physics, which meant that my mind was free to evolve in reality, where other minds encounter reality after they have been formed. I any case I had a clear conception of the limits and untold consequences of science before I got to nuclear physics in high school. Not that we touched on anything nearly relevant in high school - I was just able to ace the tests without looking at the books, where I had found things like calculating leverages a fucking nuisance. I am no scientific illiterate but science does not permit me the pride that philosophy does; I have never played James game, never even thought of respecting him (or myself!) over Einstein in his field, whereas I have no trouble respecting myself over some of the greatest philosophers. But now I think I am doing some justice to Einstein. His thoughts, that means. His grand conception. I can explain it in non mathematical terms.

40

When someone acuses another of being a liar and yet can’t produce the slightest bit of evidence despite years of opportunity, it can only mean one of two things; either he is right in claiming that the other person is “the greatest liar”, having never been caught at it, or he has become yet another common cowardly loser who has to spread lies of false accusations in his desperate attempt to gain an ounce of glory. I’m pretty sure the latter is your case.

You had one brief moment of brilliance, when you visited California. For that short moment you were insecure enough to be humble and open your mind. A bright clear star you were for that second. But then you went back to your homeland and back to your old habits. It’s been a roller coaster down hill ever since. And now, you are on the bottom with your friends, getting no where, accomplishing nothing, merely complaining to each other about how everyone else is you.

When you let others scramble your brain and choose your enemies, you do nothing but add to a pre-existing list.

Back in the 70’s they used to say, “If that guy had a brain he would take it out and play with it”. But I found that such wasn’t exactly true. They don’t bother to take it out. With chemicals they just play with where it is - same result.

You’re certainly not proving here.

Haha… yeah right. Try to keep it at least a tiny bit real. I would ask why you can’t explain anything about it today, but why bother.

Since you can do nothing but rant, why don’t you take this into the rant section where you can play to your hearts content. Heaven has no need for more self-aggrandizing king-wannabes. One cannot earn his way into heaven without getting someone else there.

I haven’t found you to be able to “explain” anything without just babbling incoherently, even your own theories.

You gave up your very brief opportunity to make something of yourself. My condolences.