That is much like the questions concerning why the Sun and Moon rise and fall, what are those little sparkly things in the night sky, and from where did Man come? Do you still ask those questions with any substantial doubt? Answers are first invented to satisfy the populous, but eventually there is enough education around that people stop asking … and caring.
This is similar to your End of History thread. There is a “End of Questioning” except by the young.
think that the subject/object dualism is one of the greatest philosophical problems - perhaps even the greatest.
How can we and especially each of us ever experience whether the subjective or the objective side is the “truth”?
I simply wanted to make an important note that concerns the asking for developments. Asking for the “before” does not always refer to physics.
Time and the “house of development”:
________________________ Time
When we ask for “change”, we can only do it with the knowledge of “time”. The general aspect of change is called “development” (by me). So history depends on evolution, development, and time; evolution depends on development and time; but development itself merely depends on time. So time is probably eternal because it is universal or cosmic; and perhaps development is also eternal; but evolution and a fortiori history are not eternal - they can end.
An analogy:
______________________ Nature
So nature (compare: physics and chemistry) is probably eternal because it is universal or cosmic; and perhaps nature/culture (compare: biology and ecology/economy) is also eternal; but culture (compare: seniotics and linguistics) and a fortiori culture/nature (compare: philosophy and mathematics) are not eternal - they can end (because neurons, brains, extensive and complex brains, mind, especially in a sense of “Geist”, are needed). Unfortunately most of the scientists and even philosophers neglect the latter, although it is the highest level. In the case of scientists, it does not surprise me, because they have, especially at present, the task is to serve the rulers. But in the case of the philosophers, it surprises me a bit. If humans really were free (they are not!), they would not neglect the culture/nature (compare: philosophy and mathematics) because they would more try to transport it in reality and in their everyday life.
If there is no awareness of time, then no change or development can be observed; if change or development can not be observed, then evolution can also not be observed; if evolution can not be observed, then history can also not be observed. Backwards: If history can be observed, then evolution, development and time can also be observed; if evolution can be observed, then development and time can also be observed; if development (change) can be observed, then time can also be observed, then there is a awareness of time.
What does that mean for life?
Life is perhaps eternal (see above). And according to RM:A0 life is eternal, isn’t it, James? As a result of that statement it depends on life itself to take its chance for eternalness (if it is a chance 
). Universe and time are probably eternal, but life is only perhaps eternal. According to the current mainstream sciencists and to the current mainstream philosophers these issues are as good as non-existent because they have to serve the rulers, and the rulers are no friends of nature, so they are probably also hostile, tired of life.
It bothers me that you still think that is merely “probably eternal”.
I agree with James on this point, as I’ve said it myself independently of James.
Time does not cause change, it measures it.
Time is not an effect.
Dimensions are a construction of man, projected onto reality.
It serves our interests very well, but they are abstract. They are not a true account of reality.
Confusion is caused when expect reality to obey by our projections.
The confusion is highlighted by a question like, ‘How big is the universe?’
It’s inconceivable that there’s an edge to universe. Because, what’s beyond that edge?
Nothing doesn’t exist. To attribute nothing to something, is to disregard it’s relevance. That something is still there, you’re just ignoring it.
‘What’s that in your pocket?’ - ‘Oh, nothing. Don’t worry about it.’
Same goes for dimensions. ‘These are the dimensions of the table’ - ‘What’s beyond the table?’ - ‘Not relevant. Focus on the bloody table.’
Existence is eternal.
Life dies. It may be recurring, as I believe, but that doesn’t mean it’s without end and beginning.
James has a chip on his shoulder about Science, and throws it all into the same boat.
Because I’m lazy, I’ll just quote some dude on the net:
For reference, my conclusions were in response to a thread of James’.
James - The 6 Dimensions of Spacetime
Me - Time & Life
Do you see the confusion in James’ thread? How he speaks of time?
The only “chip on my shoulder” concerning Science is that it is taken as “the truth” to the point of indoctrinating millions of people into believing that it is fact, all other religions are false, suppressing anyone who says otherwise, and teaching it in schools while disallowing the other religions to be taught. The USA was not to have a national religion, but it does.
None of the major religions; Judaism, Christianity, Islamism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientism have been proven wrong. Nor have they been proven right. Each and every one accepts only what has not been proven wrong.… but really?
I fully support the methodology of Science. It is the indoctrination of Science theories while suppressing any discussion of alternatives that I seriously object to. Christianity prosecuted Galileo for claiming that the world wasn’t the center of the universe. Science prosecutes anyone who says that Relativity and/or Quantum Physics isn’t fact. I have proven even more profoundly than Galileo that Relativity is false. Something actually proven to be false is being indoctrinated into millions of people as fact - that is worse than mere RELIGION.
I’m not bothered to argue with James.
But as he just demonstrated, he has a very large chip on his shoulder.
I recommend everyone keep this in mind when he talks of Science. A grain of salt, if you will.
For your convenience -
That’s good, because you aren’t qualified nor capable.
… as you are now demonstrating about yourself.
In this thread you can’t find any word, sentence, or text that says “time causes change” or “time is an effect”. Nobody has said that in this thread.
If there were no time, then you would not be able to measure any change. That is what I said. So, according to the emaning of time, there is no disgreement between James and me. Change can only be measured by time and be represented as development (the most cases), or evolution (many cases) and history (few cases). What I make is a kind of linguistic classification. If you don’t know which change is meant - development, evolution, or history -, you should just say “change” because it is a superordinated word, or “development” because it can also be used for the words “evolution” and “history”.
I agree, Arminius.
I didn’t mean to imply someone had in this thread.
What do you think about the differences relating to “change”? What do you think about “development”, “evolution”, “history”, their differences?
When some people talk about “nature” or about “universe and time”, they don’t make any difference and say for example “‘history’ of the nature”, “‘history’ of the universe”, … and so on, or “‘evolution’ of the nature”, “‘evolution’ of the universe”, … and so on. That’s not necessarily wrong, but to me the adequate word for the describing of the natural or universal “change” is “development” (or “change” itself) and not “evolution” or even “history”.
James, you are speaking of “positive noise” and “negative noise”, also of “positive waves” and “negative waves”. How much is that in accordance with the positve and negative particles?
That is a anime pic of positive, negative, and neutral “noise” made of positive and negative “waves” (or “wavelets”). Each of those is a particle. They have a Lorentzian density curve of wave(lets) causing the formation of the “particles”. And each of those applies, not merely to physical reality (physics), but also to; sociological, psychological, and economic reality. Each has its own form of “particle”. And each is made of positive and negative noisy wavelets.
Those are only the monoparticles such as electrons, positrons, and neutrinos. Or single memories, single-priority groups, and monetary banks/savings. For each of those monoparticle types, a polyparticle type can form with a limited stability; anti-protons (“negatrons”), protons, neutrons. Or collections of associated memories/thoughts, multi-priority groups (such as a family), multi-monetary banks (savings or collections from different sources or currencies).
All levels of life, thought, and existence can be understood as groupings of noisy positive and negative wavelets of influence/affects. Order is created from the natural groupings of noisy particles known as “matter” or “material concerns”.
And in all things, a negative is no more than merely the lack of a positive affectance. A negatively ordered house is merely a house less orderly than the average (ambient). Ugliness is merely the lack of average or expected beauty. And interestingly, as the Catholic Church teaches, Evil is merely the lack of the average or expected Good.
A wise man doesn’t think in terms of positive and negative except relative to a known expectation. To the wise man, all things are simply different levels of positive/good. But that doesn’t mean that nothing gets rejected from a particular setting. Things that are less good are still certainly filtered out when attempting to form a more positive setting. They are just never proclaimed absolutely negative, bad, or of no use at all for anything. To the saint, in reality, there is no negative (although there can certainly be a very substantial lack of positive).
But why is - or even must be - „a negative … merely the lack of a posive affectance“? Does „negative“ affectance not esxist? Is affectance always „positive“?
It is natural and mostly also useful to have opposites, contrasts, enemies, dualisms, … etc… The universe is made of opposites. We would therefore violate our nature, if we were not in accordance with it.
Can you name anything in nature that has an actual opposite? All things have a form of opposition to their existence, but what has an actual opposite? Nature has many things that have lesser forms and are called “opposite” or “negative” by subjective comparison (relative to some average or some expectation). But what would be the opposite of a squirrel, river, rain, tree, apple, or rock that isn’t merely a greater or lesser form relative to a chosen standard of the same kind of thing?
And affectance certainly has no opposite, nor does gravity or mass (both merely being affectance). We call a charge the opposite of another, but what we see with RM:AO, is that in reality, a negative electric charge particle is merely a concentration of lesser charge than the ambient and positive is merely a greater charge than the ambient.
I meant that form of opposition.
Why do you then calling the charges “positive” and “negative” instead of “greater charge” and “lesser charge”?
Because when I am explaining, I have to use the more common words and notions of the day. One can’t learn to speak a language, especially on the internet, if the person explaining it doesn’t ever use any words familiar to the one listening. Even if a unicorn doesn’t exist, one has to used the concept in order to propose that it doesn’t. Thus I say, “[what we call] a ‘negative charged particle’ is merely a concentration of lower affectance than the ambient”. And that ALL of the things that we CALL “negative” are in reality merely lesser than more positive things, not an opposite of positive things except in reference to an average, chosen standard, or expectation. Reality itself has no chosen standard or expectation or even awareness of any average. Averages are human mental constructs, as are standards and expectations. Physical reality has no such things. And thus physical reality actually has no negative of anything.
It is similar to the notion of “force”. Physical reality has no such thing as a force. A force is merely a perception of the mind, an assumption. The physical reality is actually merely migrating such as to change its locations around. Nothing is actually pulling or pushing, ever. But in order to explain that to those who believe in forces, I have to use the notion of “force”, the pulling and pushing that doesn’t actually exist.
AO accepts the mainstream definition of “charge”, but does not accept the mainstream definition of “positive” and “negative”. The mainstream definition of “wave” is accepted by AO, but partly not the mainstream definition of “particle”.
What you call “affectance” is nearly that what the mainstream physicists call “attraction”, and that is especially true for the electromagnetic “attraction”.
It isn’t a matter of accepting their definitions for their words, but rather what their definitions mean.
What they mean by “charge” is electric-potential. “Potential” means exactly what it is. The “Potential-to-Affect”, PtA, uses the word “potential” exactly as they do. They don’t use “charge” to mean anything different than that. So I have no need for a change of definition because RM:AO has a “potential” and thus a “charge”, although I only use the word “charge” when referring to commonly understood things like the charge of an electron.
And in the case of positive and negative, the only thing that I change is that such words can only reference an average, not an absolute. They actually already know that, but simply leave out the notion of it and thus inadvertently teach that “negative” is a separate thing from “positive” (“equal but opposite”), even though they well know that it is merely relative, until they came across subatomic particles. With subatomic particles, they didn’t know of what a negative particle could be relatively less than. They couldn’t grasp the idea that space isn’t empty. So they settled with the idea that space is zero and protons and electrons float “above zero” as “equal but opposite things”. I am merely pointing out that space is not “zero” and electrons are lower than space; lower “energy”, “potential”, “PtA”, and/or “Affectance”. And neither are negative things “equal”, even though they have opposite direction of potential/charge relative to the ambient.
Today, they know that space is not as empty as they had thought, but the idea of an electron being a higher potential-energy thing still lingers. Ambient space is the “average” that an electron is lower than, and thus properly negative relative to that average.
“Wave” merely refers to an abstract form and movement of something, like a rolling sphere, falling cube, or floating cloud.
I explain of what a particle is made and thus reveal that it isn’t quite what they teach, but the word “particle” is appropriate enough to keep.
??? Not even close. 
Affectance comes much closer to being their “mass field” or “energy field”. And there is no “attraction” in RM:AO, nor “repulsion”. Things merely migrate toward or away from other things due to their constant reforming of themselves based upon the field strength immediately around them. They feel no pulling or pushing. They rebuild themselves a little closer or further away because the field was a little stronger closer or further away. In common physics, a particle is a “solid mass”. In RM:AO a particle is a cluster of ultra-fine EMR noise busily buzzing about feeding off of the non-zero space all around it.
It is always the meaning because accept phonemes all linguistic forms (morphemes, lexemes/logemes [simiar to words], syntactemes, textemes, and even languages themselvses) have a meaning. So, the definitions of the physicists also mean what their definitions “say”. If (for example) a definition “says” that “charge is electric potential”, then it means that “charge is electric potential”.
I guess, you mean a kind of extended meaning.
Yes, as I said:
Have you not read it?
Yes, as I said:
Have you not read it?
They say that the density of the universe is about 10^-31 g/cm³ (estimated).
So “electrons are lower than space” means that electrons have “‘lower energy’, ‘potential’, ‘PTA’, and/or ‘affectance’” than space; but what is your definition of “space” then?
Yes, as I said: They estimate that the density of the universe is about 10^-31 g/cm³ (see above).
As I said:
Have you not read it?
But “affectance” is a word, related to “affect”, ,“affected”, “affection”, … and so on. So if I say “X has more affectance than X, and Y is affected by X”, I can also say: “X has more (force of) attractance than X, and Y is attracted by X”. – James, I know that you sometimes are using other words than the common physicists; but you should allow some comparisons because there are some analogies.
So, if we used some words of the common physicists and bring them into RM:AO, we could say: Affectance is a electromagnetic radiation of a electromagnetic field, not a force. Existence is that which has affect. – Could you agree with that?