Universe and Time

[Arminius]

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]

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.

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]

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.

Yes, but ... „the Chinese ... with the French“?

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?

And you are right: Denying the truth can also lead to an end of history, at least to a temporary end of history (until the new history begins). And you are also right by saying: 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. This has been becoming the real sitaution since the beginning of the "machine age".

[James S Saint]

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.

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".

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.

The universe is filled entirely with nothing but an ocean of Affectance motion, obeying Logic at every instant.

[Arminius]

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.

Physics is logically provable, but not logically provable to the ultimate extreme.

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".

Sometimes physicists understand the EMR as energy as well as you the affectance as energy.

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.

You are right by doing so. The probability of misunderstandings would be too high.

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".

[James S Saint]

Physics is logically provable, but not logically provable to the ultimate extreme.

That depends on your "physics".
I contend that RM:AO is. But of course, one must be able to understand and follow logic in ultimate detail (to match the extreme). Anyone can irrationally argue against anything and thus prove/disprove nothing.

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".

True, but they are coming around. Krauss has been allowed to publish a book that proposes that "empty space" is actually filled with energy and even before the Big Bogus Bang. Of course, being a quantum physicist, he declares that it is filled with tiny quantum energy bubbles as a foam. If anyone thinks about it for even an instant... no matter where you were floating in space, you would be able to see stars. If you can see anything at all, it is only because light is there, an ocean of light filling every tiny spec of all space. How many photons are between your eye and the wall in front of you? More than you can count.

It seems odd to me that they have so much distaste for handling the infinities and infinitesimals. I am suspecting that it is an ego issue concerning religion. But perhaps it is merely an ego issue concerning the ability to claim total knowledge (the Godwannaes's dream).

[Arminius]

What do you think about that "tiny quantum energy bubbles as a foam", James?

[James S Saint]

What do you think about that "tiny quantum energy bubbles as a foam", James?

Superstitious nonsense. They came up with the idea of a minimum "Planck" length in order to uphold an earlier extrapolated theory. And then had to proclaim that energy pops in and out of existence without cause so as to support their Plank length theory. They have had to invent quite a number of things in order to support prior presumptuous theories = superstition, the stitching together of presumed facts by irrational reasoning, aka "magic", which is of course exactly what they constantly accuse the religions of doing (because that is the only thing they know how to do so they assume that is what everyone does). Of course, it is only okay to invent superstitious "gods of the gaps" if it is in the name of Science. But a religion is as a religion does.

As explained earlier, it is impossible for even the tiniest portion of space to be without affectance, "energy", Planck or no Planck. But as it is said, one must remove the plank out of his own eye, before he can see to pick the splinter out of another's.

[Arminius]

The family name of Max Planck was not "Plank", but Planck.

[James S Saint]

The family name of Max Planck was not "Plank", but Planck.

Yeah, sorry. Thx.

[Arminius]

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 coems 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]

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".

There is no actual pushing or pulling (as a Buddhist will tell you). All motion, although inspired by the outside, is only accomplished by the inside, a choice made by the person.

[Arminius]

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".

But cultures are "merely" the biggest / largest / greatest forms of "communal particles", at least to me. I guess that you would say that nations or empires are the biggest / largest / greatest forms of "communal particles".

However, in nature or the so called "universe" the biggest / largest / greatest forms of "communal particles" are the galaxies or even the universe itself.

[James S Saint]

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.

[Arminius]

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.

Yes, but not in any case.

But let us stay closer to the topic: the galaxies or even the universe itself as a "great particle"?

[James S Saint]

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]

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, is it?

[James S Saint]

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?

A "Multiverse" is a social and psychological concept, not a physical concept except to solipsists. At any one time, there are groups of people who are thinking in different terms than others, yet dealing with the same reality. So it is said that they are in "parallel universes" wherein they each have their formulas (laws of how things work), leaders, and similar programs to manage their "world of influence". But one cannot think in terms of the other, so each seems invisible to the other.

For example, the Catholics control a different map of "national" boundaries more related to cultural boundaries. They have their own hierarchy of authority. Yet the same people are being managed as the Secularists with their map of influence. Hierarchies of influence overlap and since most of them are secretive, they can't clearly see each other = "multiverse" or "parallel universes".

[Arminius]

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]

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".

[Arminius]

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".

My question was directed more to the WORD "noise". I understand it also as a reasonably loud sound / noise. But since English is not my first language, I'm not sure. whether you meant it that way. Noise can't be loud in almost empty spaces of the universe because wil there are hardly any transfer agent.

[James S Saint]

Well, in English, the word "noise" merely refers to meaningless random sounds, not especially loud. For loud noise, we say, "Loud Noise". And the Affectance equivalent would be bright white light or even plasma.

[Arminius]

Well, in English, the word "noise" merely refers to meaningless random sounds, not especially loud. For loud noise, we say, "Loud Noise".

I thought so. But I was not sure. Therefore my question.

And the Affectance equivalent would be bright white light or even plasma.

Yep.

[Arminius]

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:

density = mass / volume

- thus:

.

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 gravitation and its field?
That would be strange.

[James S Saint]

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:

density = mass / volume

- thus:

.

You seem to be missing the point, so let me start over.

In strictly RM:AO terms;

1) Given any small portion of space, we know that it is filled with nothing but infinitesimal pulses of randomly propagating affect, a "field of affectance".

2) If the density of the pulses gets too high, a prolonged traffic jam occurs as the pulses encounter each other. The concentration of affects at the center of the traffic jam becomes extremely highly dense and crowded. It grows to a maximum density possible. And the density or concentration of the randomly propagating affects gradually decreases with the distance from that center. That very small region immediately surrounding that center is easily visible and is referred to as "a particle". The visible concentration is "the particle of matter".

3) The surrounding less dense field is not visible and extends far from the particle and gets less dense, less concentrated, the further away from the particle.

4) If two such concentrations of affects are in close proximity, both with lesser concentrated fields surrounding them, the two centers will begin to migrate toward each other because the concentration/density is greater between the two particles than other surrounding areas.

5) The migration occurs because the traffic is heavier between the two traffic jams and that causes the random propagating to be slower between the particles than other regions, thus inside the small region of each particle there is more prolongation/delaying occurring in the small area nearer the other particle. Because the particle affectance concentration is already at a maximum level, the particles cannot simply grow larger. Instead they shift or migrate the maximum concentration/density, maintaining the same size, merely closer to each other.

Now in terms of common physics;

1) Given any small portion of space, we know that it is filled with pulses of randomly propagating "EMR energy and gravity".

2) There might also be a "particle of mass" floating in that space.

3) A "gravitational field" is emitted by that particle.

4) If there are two such particles in close proximity, they will be attracted toward each other.

5) The two particles gravitate toward each other because they each attract the other by gravitational force.

So to translate;
Affectance field = EMR energy and gravity.

Highly concentrated affectance field = mass particle.

Low concentrated affectance field = gravity field (can be called "mass field").

Affectance particle migration due to a gradient in the affectance field = particle mass attraction due to gravitational force.

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.

Affectance field with higher average PtA than the ambient field has = positive electrostatic field.

Affectance field with lower average PtA than the ambient field has = negative electrostatic field.

Affectance density = energy density.

The density of affectance has little to do with the electrostatic field. The electromagnetic field is a field of changing electrostatic field. The "density" involved merely refers to how much changing of the electrostatic field is happening within a volume. There is far, far more changing of the subtle EMR within a strong gravity field, but the magnitude of the changing is infinitesimal and the average electrostatic field is close to zero.

An electromagnetic field might have greater energy density than a gravitational field. It just depends what you are measuring. The energy density is the affectance density. So close to the center of a particle, where the affectance density is near maximum possible, the gravitational effect/field is extremely high, but there is no detectable EMR.

In common physics, the smallest electromagnetic wave is a huge macroscopic wave of affectance pulses. In RM:AO the affectance field itself is made of the same thing as that macroscopic EMR wave, merely infinitesimal sizes and randomized.