Moderator: Flannel Jesus
Arminius wrote:The mankind should not allow the annihilation of the difference between „truth“ and „reality“. In Europe it is already practically forbidden to speak of „truth“ (you know why, James). „There is no truth at all“, it is often said as soon as one speaks of it. Ridiculous. It is so important that the difference remains.
James S Saint wrote:When the world is being reprogrammed, they prefer to erase the old truths before instilling the new truths. They do that by going through several generations of denying all truth (a "dark era"). By the time they get done, it might be true that the world wars never took place. Or perhaps that they were a wars that the Chinese started with the French. All books and records indicating anything other than the new history will be destroyed. And anyone implying anything other than "what everyone knows to be true" will be laughed at, before arrested and forcefully reprogrammed or just erased.
Arminius wrote:Before we deviate too much from the topic: what does RM:AO tell about the universe and the time? How different are its explanations from those of mainstream physics?
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:Before we deviate too much from the topic: what does RM:AO tell about the universe and the time? How different are its explanations from those of mainstream physics?
Well, that is the purpose of the RM:AO Fundamentals thread, to explain the relation between the two.
The greatest difference is that RM:AO explains literally everything in terms of a single field, "Affectance". And because of what that word means, "All subtle Affects", it automatically relates to literally all other sciences, not just physics. It is a true "Theory of Everything" or "Grand Unified Theory" as well as a "Unified Field Theory". And unlike physics, is logically provable to the ultimate extreme.
James S Saint wrote:At the very most fundamental level, the Electric Potential is nearly identical to the Potential-to-Affect, PtA. And thus the resultant Affectance is nearly identical to the Electromagnetic Radiation, EMR. But Affectance can also be understood simply as "Energy".
James S Saint wrote:I don't use common physics terms in RM:AO because of the misunderstandings commonly associated with them, even though technically, there is a great deal of similarity.
James S Saint wrote:The universe is filled entirely with nothing but an ocean of Affectance motion, obeying Logic at every instant.
Arminius wrote:Physics is logically provable, but not logically provable to the ultimate extreme.
Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote:The universe is filled entirely with nothing but an ocean of Affectance motion, obeying Logic at every instant.
I think that - especially relating to this point - the physicists are attacking you with their statement that "the very largest part of the universe is rather empty".
Arminius wrote:What do you think about that "tiny quantum energy bubbles as a foam", James?
Arminius wrote:The family name of Max Planck was not "Plank", but Planck.
JSS wrote:When the ambient affectance density of a particle increases, the particle cannot disseminate at the same rate as it is accumulating, so the particle grows.
If the ambient affectance noise is denser on one side of a particle than the opposite, the center of the clump of noise shifts toward the more dense affectance field. The "particle" moves or relocates – "Particle Motion".
Arminius wrote:JSS wrote:When the ambient affectance density of a particle increases, the particle cannot disseminate at the same rate as it is accumulating, so the particle grows.
If the ambient affectance noise is denser on one side of a particle than the opposite, the center of the clump of noise shifts toward the more dense affectance field. The "particle" moves or relocates – "Particle Motion".
Relating to RM:AO, it would be very interesting to know what that "motion" means when it comes to form bodies which are very much greater than particles, and especially when it comes to form such "bodies" like "communal particles" or even cultures.
Let me guess: even the same, the difference is merely relative to greater bodies and to living beings.
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:JSS wrote:When the ambient affectance density of a particle increases, the particle cannot disseminate at the same rate as it is accumulating, so the particle grows.
If the ambient affectance noise is denser on one side of a particle than the opposite, the center of the clump of noise shifts toward the more dense affectance field. The "particle" moves or relocates – "Particle Motion".
Relating to RM:AO, it would be very interesting to know what that "motion" means when it comes to form bodies which are very much greater than particles, and especially when it comes to form such "bodies" like "communal particles" or even cultures.
Let me guess: even the same, the difference is merely relative to greater bodies and to living beings.
ALL bodies move ONLY when their internal components are inspired to move. That is very relevant to psychology and sociology, but applies to literally ALL bodies, whether particles, compound molecules, people, or nations. And ALL changes in motion of bodies, though from the inside, is inspired by what is outside the body.
Germany can only relocate by all of its people relocating, which in turn will inspire internal motion of other countries, usually against the motion Germany and toward the vacuum left behind. A person is inspired to do things by being inspired inside by something on the outside, although he seldom realizes it. A person is always inspired by his "Perception" of Hope and Threat (his personal "positive and negative"). Perception is always referring to an inside perceiving an outside. Even when it is trying to perceive itself, it sees itself as something outside of, other than, itself, as though looking in a mirror; "introspection", "reflecting upon oneself".
Usually cultures don't relocate, but rather subtly spread, "cultural affectance".
James S Saint wrote:Nations are military/political imagined borders, agreements between political leaders and royal families. Cultures are more about traditional thinking patterns and genetic influences. Thus national borders can be (and are being) rearranged more easily than cultures can be relocated. Cultures tend to spread from a general point of origin and compete with others, not so pron to simple agreements of proclaimed leaders lusting for ultimate control.
You might say that a culture is a more stable "particle" than a nation.
James S Saint wrote:I could agree with a galaxy being a "particle within the universe", but the universe cannot be said to be a particle. A "particle" refers to a "part" or small bit of something. Obviously the entire universe, being all "things", cannot be a small bit of some-thing.
Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote:I could agree with a galaxy being a "particle within the universe", but the universe cannot be said to be a particle. A "particle" refers to a "part" or small bit of something. Obviously the entire universe, being all "things", cannot be a small bit of some-thing.
A "multiverse" is not a good idea for you, isn't it?
Arminius wrote:Noise plays an important role in RM:AO. In accordance with current physics there is no noise outside, at the utmost a quiet noise, of an body atmosphere. Do you mean a quiet / low sound with the word "noise"?
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:Noise plays an important role in RM:AO. In accordance with current physics there is no noise outside, at the utmost a quiet noise, of an body atmosphere. Do you mean a quiet / low sound with the word "noise"?
I am merely referring to random EMR spikes, "electromagnetic noise" or "Affectance noise", not specifically "sound noise".
James S Saint wrote:Well, in English, the word "noise" merely refers to meaningless random sounds, not especially loud. For loud noise, we say, "Loud Noise".
James S Saint wrote:And the Affectance equivalent would be bright white light or even plasma.
Arminius wrote:The "particle motion" means that the "particle" moves or relocates because the center of the clump of noise has shifted toward the more dense affectance field, If the ambient affectance noise had been denser on one side of a particle than the opposite.
So you use the word "density" instead of the word "mass" or the word "gravity" because you are saying that the density moves and attracts, although the physicists have been saying for some centuries that also in the case of density the gravity is the cause of moving and attracting, not the density itself, although the density is the most important factor of mass and thus gravity.
Thus density is defined as mass divided by volume:- thus:
density = mass / volume
.
Arminius wrote:Do you go even as far as saying that the density has more to do with the electromagnetic field, the affectance field, than with the graviatation and its field?
That would be strange.
Return to Science, Technology, and Math
Users browsing this forum: No registered users