WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE
Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz

<= [511][512][513][514][515][516][517][518][519][520] =>

Jahr  S. E. 
 2001 *  1
 2002 *  1
 2003 *  1
 2004 *  3
 2005 *  2
 2006 *  2
2007 2
2008 2
2009 0  
2010 56
2011 80
2012 150
2013 80
2014 230
2015 239
2016 141
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
14
14
70
150
300
380
610
849
990
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
16,67%
 
400%
114,29%
100%
26,67%
60,53%
39,18%
16,61%
 
S.E. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0050
0,0044
0,0198
0,0384
0,0702
0,0819
0,1219
0,1581
0,1726
 
K.  
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
4
0  
158
97
246
169
1614
1580
1949
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
16
16
174
271
517
686
2300
3880
5829
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
33,33%
 
987,50%
55,75%
90,77%
32,69%
235,28%
60,70%
50,23%
 
  K.  
S. E.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
2,82
1,21
1,64
2,11
7,02
6,61
13,82
 
  K.  
T.
0,0039
0,0027
0,0027
0,0082
0,0055
0,0055
0,0055
0,0109
0
0,4328
0,2658
0,6721
0,4630
4,4219
4,3288
5,3251
 
 K. (S.) 
S.E. (S.)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,143
1,143
2,486
1,807
1,723
1,805
3,770
4,570
5,888
 
K. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0057
0,0050
0,0491
0,0693
0,1210
0,1479
0,4596
0,7227
1,0116
* Von 2001 bis 2006 nur Gästebuch, erst ab 2007 auch Webforen und Weblogs.

NACH OBEN 511) Arminius, 14.07.2014, 19:36, 19:43, 20:36, 22:00 (1507-1510)

1507

Really what? Well known? Or that it has to do with mathematics for a 14 to 16 year old pupil?

And besides all mathematics:

Do you have an answer to the question why the universe must be an eternal one? (Remember: besides mathematics; so please don't say that it has to be because of mathematics!).

1508

James S. Saint wrote:

„What do I think about the H.G. Wells films?
I think that he, like many, were aware of the thoughts of powerful men. But unlike the »conspiracy theorists«, he simply made fictional films exposing the concepts without naming names. That is the way to get the word out in the West.“ **

Primarly he wrote books. Did he also make films?

James S. Saint wrote:

„And I still don't know what you mean by »inaugurated him as one of them« (**|**|**|**).“ **

He was one of them.

1509

A text from MNN:

„Computers take over .

It may sound a lot like the plot of »The Terminator«, but computer technology is advancing daily and some believe that self-aware machines could become self-replicating and take over. After all, there are few areas of life where computers don’t intrude — they run banks, hospitals, stock markets and airports. Previously, computers were only as good as the humans using them, but artificial intelligence has the potential to create independently acting machines capable of outsmarting or destroying their creators.

Renowned scientist Stephen Hawking thinks computers could be a threat and argues that humans should be genetically engineered in order to compete with the phenomenal growth of artificial intelligence. In a recent interview he even said, »the danger is real that they could develop intelligence and take over the world.« The idea of a computer takeover may sound absurd, but you never know, we could be in the Matrix right now.“ **

Besides the fact that Hawking's statement „that they could develop intelligence“ is stupid - because computers have been developing intelligence for so long - the danger is real that machines take over the world. The probability is about 80%, I estimate (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).

1510

James S. Saint wrote:

Arminius wrote:

»And which currencies do you suggest?« ** **

They would have to be newly created, although the current »greenback« could be used as one of the three (for example).“ **

As one of the three, yes, that is possible.

James S. Saint wrote:

Arminius wrote:

»Besides the fact that Hawking's statement ›that they could develop intelligence‹ is stupid - because computers have been developing intelligence for so long - the danger is real that machines take over the world.« ** **

And look at his solution for the possible problem ==> Redesign the human DNA.

Either way, humanity is lost. And how does the media treat it all? »Mutations occur all the time«. »Now in then in nature, sudden cataclysmic changes in DNA genes shift the balance of life.« »You might get super-powers as a mutant.« »Look how much easier life is for those with implants.« »Professionals always use technological enhancements.« ....

I would say that 80% is a low estimate.“ **

Maybe. I have included my wishes and hopes.

„We could be in the Matrix right now“ (**|**) - what do you think about that statement?

 

NACH OBEN 512) Arminius, 15.07.2014, 00:00, 00:08, 01:41, 02:19, 21:29, 22:46 (1511-1516)

1511

James S. Saint wrote:

„Can you provide a link where my explanation is obviously »well known« by anyone, young or old?

What you explained has to do with your „RM:AO“. It is derived mathematically, but not merely a mathematical theme. I meant the mathematics behind your „RM:AO“, not the „RM:AO“ itself, when I said „well known“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Mathematics is merely logic applied to quantities. To dismiss mathematics is to dismiss logic. Without logic, all you have to go on is sensed impressions, rumors, and faith that someone else magically knew void of reasoning. But then how do you know who to listen to other than those same gut feelings?

The question is one of Logic. Logic is the only way to actually answer the question and that includes Mathematics.“ **

Mathematics and logic are not always congruent, else they could be synonyms, but they are not synonyms.

1512

The word „inaugurated“ means something like the word „adepted“, right?

1513

James S. Saint wrote:

„Math is constructed almost entirely of logic applied strictly to quantities only. Logic is a broader category. There are a few rare cases where math forgoes logic. As far as I know those are only concerning issues involving infinity and zero. So in my explanation, I fill in that disconnection as per Edwin Hewitt and Hyperreals. Standard mathematics doesn't deal with powers of infinity, nor powers of infinitesimals. But to see the logic of why anything exists at all, one must look into those relationships. So I explain them as part of the whole explanation concerning why there can never be a state of nothingness.

In short, whatever math was lacking, I filled in with logic. And the math is pretty trivial.

But without the logic/math concerning powers of infinity, »Hyperreals«, any explanation is going to be incomplete.“ **

That's what I meant, but I used some other words.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Because the potential to affect is not identical anywhere, actualization of affect takes place everywhere.“ **

But would the actualization of affect also take place then, if the potential to affect were identical?

James S. Saint wrote:

„As affect occurs between adjacent potentials, waves of affect propagate randomly in both direction and magnitude.“ **

Why randomly? Probably because of the different adjacent potentials, directions, and magnitudes, right?

James S. Saint wrote:

„When propagating waves of affect act upon the same point, their affects are added.“ **

It's like speed everywhere - except speed of light. But does your RM:AO accept the „law“ that the speed of light is the limit of speed in the universe?

1514

James S. Saint wrote:

„An inauguration is a ceremony to announce a member into a group, usually as a leader.“ **

Yeah, and that's almost exactly what I meant.

1515

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»But would the actualization of affect also take place then, if the potential to affect were identical?« ** **

Nothing can affect anything if it is being equally affected in return by that same thing. So if the potential to affect is exactly similar (»identical«) everywhere, then there is no potential to affect anywhere. The affecting would be absolutely zero = nothingness (which is why it is important to treat everyone exactly the same, so that society (or at least the lower class of it) will become nothing = nihilation).

Arminius wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

›As affect occurs between adjacent potentials, waves of affect propagate randomly in both direction and magnitude.‹ **

Why randomly? Probably because of the different adjacent potentials, directions, and magnitudes, right?« ** **

Right, until there is something to establish a pattern or order, there is only disorder or randomness, »Nothing is possible until something is impossible«.

Arminius wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

›When propagating waves of affect act upon the same point, their affects are added.‹ **

It's like speed everywhere - except speed of light. But does your RM:AO accept the ›law‹ that the speed of light is the limit of speed in the universe?« ** **

The speed of Affect, is a logical derivation lacking any alternative regardless of what anyone measures and in Science is called »the speed of light in a (total) vacuum«, even though a truly total vacuum can't really exist. The actual maximum speed of light in a total vacuum can never be measured, only derived. But there is a different kind of speed involving the mind that can be faster than light.

The mind defines objects and can do so such as to conclude that the object in question is actually moving faster than light. I ran across that problem when I emulated RM:AO, as my PC kept detecting particles moving faster than affect/light. I eventually discovered that it was reporting particles as a clump of noise, just as I had told it to do. But the center of the clump was moving faster than any of the affects that made it up. This turned out to be interesting, but not really of much value. What it amounted to was the speed of something depends on how you define that something.

The speed of simple affect is a similar derivation to that involving why the universe exists in the first place. It involves the powers of infinity and infinitesimals and is as follows:

The Speed of Affect/Light
The smallest distance possible is 1/(the Largest distance possible, or »Largest number possible«) = »Smallest«.
The shortest time possible is also 1/(the greatest change rate possible, or »Largest number possible«) = »Smallest«.
The largest distance possible is simply the Largest number possible = »Largest«.

The fastest speed is the Largest Distance / Smallest Time, which is not possible because that is a number larger than the largest possible number.

So the fastest speed possible can only be expressed as either;
1/Smallest = Largest, or
Largest/1 = Largest.

Affect propagates by affecting the next closest point (Smallest distance) in the shortest possible time (Smallest). Or the velocity (v) going from point A to the next point B is;
v = d/t, or
v = Smallest / Smallest = 1, because they are the exact same power and magnitude of infinitesimal. And that is a finite number even though derived by infinite numbers. The finite is derived by the infinite.

And 1 infinitesimal, I refer to as »0+«, is
0+ = Smallest * (Largest / infinity) = (Smallest * Largest) / infinity = 1/infinity

Which is to say that in order for an affect to propagate even one infinitesimal (0+) distance, it must affect the »Largest/infinity« number of points in the Smallest amount of time each, which takes 0+ time. And to reach a distance of 1, it must do that an infinite number of times (0+ * infinity = 1, again because they are the same power and magnitude of infinity).

So even though Affect is affecting at the Largest possible infinite rate, it still takes a finite amount of time to gain a distance of merely 1. And in RM:AO, I refer to that distance as »1 toe«. And the time it takes for the fastest possible affect to travel one toe distance is, »1 tic« (both by definition).

So the maximum speed of affect is 1 toe/tic, a finite number, which concurrent physics defines (very relevant) as 299,792,458 m/s. So,
1 toe/tic = 299,792,458 m/s by definition.

And if physics would more exactly define its sizes of particles, mass, energy, or other relevant elements in their ontology and I could get the more sophisticated mathematics worked out involving affectance particle sizes, amount of affectance, or notable speeds, I could tell them the perfectly exact length required of one meter and one second according their their own definitions. Or if they define other elements exactly, I could tell them if their speed of light was actually perfectly accurate (or anyone else could for that matter).

The bottom line is that Definitional Logic dictates truth. Scientific observation can merely confirm it.

And btw, when it comes to affects crossing each other's path, I mentioned that they slow each other. It should be obvious now that the reason they must slow is that their intersection point is already changing at the Largest possible rate merely by one of them. When there are two, that point must either change at twice the Largest possible rate, or the affecting must divide its propagation speed. Since there can be no »twice the Largest possible«, the only logical alternative is that the propagation rate of the two affects is slowed.

And that is occurring at every point throughout the entire universe. Because that is occurring literally everywhere, the actual speed of affect or of light can never be the ideal maximum. All of space is filled with conflict and thus all things are delayed from the ideal. And when too much gets into conflict, a stable »traffic jam« occurs. A »Particle of Matter« forms out of the Logic of simply the necessary existence of Affect upon Affect, »Affectance«.“ **

Why do you refer to „1 toe“ and „1 tic“ ? In order to be in compliance with a condition named „speed of light“ (299 792 458 m / s) ?

1516

James S. Saint wrote:

„Phyllo wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

›Some corporations (companies, organisations or however you may call them) are already so rich / powerful that each of those corporations has a property / power which is more than the gross national product of France or Italy.‹ ** **

GNP France 2011 = 2.8 trillion US dollars.
GNP Italy 2011 = 2.2 trillion US dollars.« **

Which corporations have greater assets?

The Rothschilds, for example, could buy both of those countries outright and not even feel the loss.

American corporations are limited and never get above $1 trillion. It's the »old families« who have the serious money (100's of trillions).“ **

For comparison: the current world GNP = 70 trillion US dollars.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Those corporations can easily circumvent that limit of 1 trillion US Dollars, for example by joining together with other corporations, by forming a super-corporation, a super-company, a super organisation (similar to a super organism). There are ways and paths enough to do this. The difference between them and the ordinary people is already so great that one can almost speak of two different human „species“.

 

NACH OBEN 513) Arminius, 16.07.2014, 00:13, 01:40, 02:14, 02:43, 03:30, 03:45, 03:59, 21:48, 22:20 (1517-1525)

1517

James S. Saint wrote:

Arminius wrote:

»›We could be in the Matrix right now‹ (**|**) - what do you think about that statement?« ** **

Depending on who you mean by »we« and by using the proper metaphor, »we« definitely are.

The issue is one of believing what you see from the media. The media spins a virtual reality image of world events, fake or at least strongly exaggerated. So what the average person believes to be real, is »just a program«. They live in that program as a part of it without realizing how much of it is fake. Some things are supposed to be believed as fake so as to give creditability to other things. It's just psychological trickery played on the masses.

Morpheus, in the story is trying to find Neo, a super hero who can »get in the system/program and help the Zionists free the people and save Zion from the evil Architect of the ›System‹«. So metaphorically speaking, it is largely an account of reality.

But no, I don't think that my mind is physically connected to a large physical massive computer wherein I am but a small program inside, unless you are talking about the universe itself.

My particular issue is that I believe BOTH sides of that fight are sociopathic mass murderers.“ **

That reminds us of Platon's „Cave Allegory“:

**

Like prisoners people are chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind them a fire burns. Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which puppeteers can walk. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the real objects, that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see. If the prisoners were released, they could turn their heads and see the real objects. Then they would realize their error.

Instead of „unable to turn their heads“ we could say: „unable to use their brains in the right way“.

1518

According to RM:AO: 1 „toe“ <=> 299 792 458 Meters and 1 „tic“ <=> 1 second, because you are saying „1 toe/tic = 299,792,458 m/s by definition“ (**).

1519

James S. Saint wrote:

„Yep, good analogy (**|**).

And RM:AO was designed specially to get out of that cave (**|**).“ **

Yes, that thought suggests itself to me too.

You once told me that you are „a bit like Hegel“ (**|**). Is it right, if I say you are also a bit like Platon?

1520

If one says „the distance between A and B is 60 km“ and one needs „one hour to get from A to B“, than the speed is 60 km/h, but one one could also say the speed is „A to B / h“.

If one says „ten minutes are one x“ and „the distance between A and B is 60 km“ and „the speed is 60 km/h“, then one one could also say the speed is „360 / x“ or „6 (A to B) / x“.

1521

You mean: 1 toe / 1 tic = (299,792,458) 1 m / 1 s. Right?

1522

James S. Saint wrote:

„Right, but only as a whole ratio.“ **

As a whole ratio, yes.

James S. Saint wrote:

„That doesn't mean that I know anything concerning the ratio of meters to toes or seconds to tics. Although if I found either of those, I could then deduce the other.“ **

Do you think that you will be successful?

James S. Saint wrote:

„As it is, I have to find out by what they are determining how long a second or a meter is, and then determine for myself how many tics or toes that same thing must be. Then I would have a »Rosetta stone« with which to translate my units to theirs.“ **

So until now „toes“ and „tics“ are still your „auxiliary constructs“?

1523

Okay, I forgive you.

James S. Saint wrote:

„There are four levels of intelligence in society. The top level is involved in forming what it is that you call »Truth«.“ **

Would you please name the other three levels?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Some do so with deception in mind in order to gain a prize.“ **

Relatively many do so.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Very few do so altruistically.“ **

That's true.

1524

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Would you please name the other three levels? ** **

0) Reality itself; determining how the entire universe behaves.

1) Ontological Architects; choosing which concepts are going to be allowed into the minds of men, »which angels are allowed on Earth«, choosing the »gods« of Man, and providing for that void between above and below, doing all things indirectly. Sometimes referred to as the »ascended« or »lords«.

2) Religious Architects and Leaders; choosing how the »gods«/principles are to be obeyed through governing/maintaining thoughts and emotions, regulating the Perception of Hopes and Threats through subtle methods; value assignments (»money«), pestilence/diseases, and communication; »Media Networks«, »Social Networks«, »Rumor Mills«, »Secret Orders«, »Banking«, and »Medical Treatments«.

3) Government Architects and Leaders; governing/maintaining actions, militarily regulating constraints and freedoms, the »Laws of the Land«.

4) Masses; suffering in ignorance of what is going on above and around them, blinded in the confusion and on occasion, saved by the order.

When (2) and (3) are combined, you get a Pharaoh King and lustful „Godwannabe“ having far too much power for his degree of discipline and understanding.

Note that I didn't say that any of them are particularly good at what they do. Frankly I prefer that the top and bottom get stitched a lot closer together so as to quail and prevent the malignancy that leads to so very much needless suffering.“ **

You mentioned a „0“-level: „Reality itself; determining how the entire universe behaves.“ It doesn't belong to the „four levels of intelligence in society“ which you mentioned before (**|**). Thderefore: „0)“.

According to Hans-Peter Raddatz those „four levels“ are:

1) World „nobility“ (upper „nobility“).
2) State „nobility“ (middle „nobility“).
3) Dressage „nobility“ (lower „nobility“).
4) Masses.

Interestingly the governmental Politicians are not a part of the state „nobility“ (middle „nobility“ ), but merely a part of the „nobility“ (lower „nobility“).The state „nobility“ (=> 2) and the dressage „nobility“ (=> 3) shall unite to one „nobility“; both shall become one dressage „nobility“ because states shall vanish.

1525

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»So until now ›toes‹ and ›tics‹ are still your ›auxiliary constructs‹?« ** **

**

Yes. For example, in the following, each frame in the anime is one »tic«.

And each pixel of the wave is independently calculated as to how far it will go across the screen within that one tic. Common physics uses the whole wave as an object and tries to calculate how the shape of the wave might vary (when they bother to try) and then also how far the whole wave will advance „per second“.

When I made that, I wasn't absolutely certain that the wave was even going to remain a wave as it traveled, but it turned out to behave exactly as you see it there, showing how much PtA gets compressed into a »magnetic wave« due to the Affectance wave (»electric potential wave«) entering and leaving a high affectance density field (»mass field«).

The definition of the »speed of light« provided by physics is how fast that wave begins and ends. But in the center region, they have to use their General relativity to figure out about how much compression takes place. And they don't seem to even know that their magnetic field is merely a compressed electric field, because in their ontology, they treat it as though it was a separate field.“ **

So „each frame is ... one tic“? Do you mean the frames between the „metaspace“ and the „physical space“? And „each pixel of the wave is independently calculated as to how far it will go across the screen within that one tic“? With reference to that the words„frame“, „tic“, „pixel“ get a partly uncertain meaning to me. Is it just because of the various meanings of the words and their translation from your into my first language or because of the animation?

James, would you please explicitly explain your animation?

 

NACH OBEN 514) Arminius, 17.07.2014, 02:08, 02:31, 03:21, 03:57, 04:21, 04:23, 04:41, 05:09, 16:42, 17:10, 22:12, 23:29, 23:30 (1526-1538)

1526

James S. Saint wrote:

Such animations are made by a sequence of picture frames from beginning to end and then looped back. When I said »each frame«, I was referring to each picture frame in the sequence. And a »pixel« refers to the smallest digital dot in a digital picture or one smallest dot on a video screen (**).“ **

I thought so, but I wasn't quite sure. Thank you.

James S. Saint wrote:

„And that anime (**) is showing an affectance pulse (blue) traveling into and out of a gradually varying affectance field. Or in common physics, »a pulse of light traveling into and out of a mass/gravity field«.

So in making that anime, I had each picture frame show one moment in time and the picture frame represents an update for each tic of time. I think there were about 500 tics (picture frames) in that anime.

That blue affectance pulse is actually an infinite number of pulses (every tiny pulse in RM:AO is made of tinier pulses). So I could not honestly treat the entire wave as a single object without proof that it would remain a single wave and not breakup. So I had the computer calculate the distance of propagation for each tiny »pixel worth« of the pulse independently (perhaps 30-40 pixels for the blue wave). What you see as the wave moves across the screen is not a single object as far as the computer was concerned, but rather many points (pixels) of affectance traveling at their own speed.

The result was that the wave did stay as a wave, but it compressed as it traveled into the higher density affectance field (the same as a pulse of light traveling into a gravity field). The pink color wave represents how much each pixel-worth of the affectance wave was being compressed, »PtA Compression«. That wave in common physics is known as the »magnetic wave« associated with electromagnetic waves or light as depicted below.

**

Note that there is a slight variation between what is shown by physics and what I have shown. The wave that physicists presume, is a wave that is already compressed such as to have a magnetic field associated (which they show at right angles to indicate polarity).

My anime is showing how the compression of the electric field occurs and what causes the magnetic wave to exist in the first place. It shows that the amount of compression or »strength of magnetic wave« will increase as a pulse of light enters a gravity field, such as from space down to Earth's surface or light enters a material such as glass (affecting light reflection and diffraction characteristics). And also if a pulse of light is sent into space, the associated magnetic field will grow weaker.

Also as the pulse is compressed, the electric and magnetic fields are not exactly in phase with each other. That fact becomes relevant when trying to deal with particle physics. The magnetic wave goes in and out of phase as an EM pulse goes in or out of a mass gradient, such as near a nucleus or proton. And although not shown here, the phase of the magnetic to electric field is affected merely by going in or out of a strong electric field, not merely a mass field.

The point is that without the use of a »tic« and a »toe«, calculated from pure logic, I could not know that a magnetic field would behave that way. Science couldn't have told me either.“ **

Thank you, James.

Why didn’t you write a book about your RM:AO?

1527

James S. Saint wrote:

„I am as we »speak«.

.... Just keep asking questions.

The point is that without the use of a »tic« and a »toe«, calculated from pure logic, I could not know that a magnetic field would behave that way. Science couldn't have told me either. If particle physicist would adjust their calculations accordingly, their measurements would be more accurate.

Realize that physics is discovering things from »top-down« as time goes on. In a sense, I am (mentally) traveling backwards in time as I discover where physicists are currently at by deriving things from »bottom-up«, from perfect nothingness to actual physical existence. And as they discover their most insidious technology and destructive weapons, they are actually just getting closer to me. When we merge, the game is over.“ **

Let me guess: „Black hole“.

1528

James S. Saint wrote:

„Well as a social-metaphor, they form the Black-hole, »Singularity«, of Globalism. I then spawn the precipitous »Big Bang«, creating millions of »new stars« and life. But if the timing is not seriously perfect, there might not be any humans left (as per our other thread). It is going to happen either way, with the result of a »Body and Mind of Man« that complies with the Principles of Reality (aka »God«), hopefully not formed merely of androids and the very few elitists who were responsible for murdering billions of people unnecessarily in their lust for power.“ **

YOU then spawn the „Big Bang“?

Do I have to get afraid, James?

1529

James S. Saint wrote:

„Be afraid ..., be very afraid!

It's not that kind of Big Bang.
The Black-hole is what to be feared if anything as they try to maintain their system by killing off the non-useful.
Again, by metaphor; The »Globalist Nazis« exterminating the »Globalist Jews«, with no where to run.“ **

What kind of „Big Bang“ is it then?

1530

James S. Saint wrote:

„SAM, I AM.

But let's not get carried away with the spiritual lingo. After they accomplish their global monarchy in the name of »Democratic Socialism« by exterminating all resistance, »Comply or Die«, within them is realized the only means for them to continue to survive (to be Anentropic) is to break apart into millions of »tiny« social »families«, each anentropic in its own right.“ **

„SAM“ = „Social Anentropic Molecularisation“, I guess.

1531

If the „black hole“, the „singularity“, will have been formed, as you said (**|**), then you will not be able to spawn the „big bang“, won't you?

1532

James S. Saint wrote:

„Since the Monotheism has already arisen and now is decaying, thoughts are »devolving« into a prior state of paganism. And as it continues, will lead into pure hedonism (just before being completely whipped out).“ **

Hedonism has been existing for a long time, and when it „will lead into pure hedonism“, as you said, will that be the „black hole“ as a social metaphor, the „singularity“ because of the most extreme individualism?

1533

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»If the ›black hole‹, the ›singularity‹, will have been formed, as you said, then you will not be able to spawn the ›big bang‹, won't you?« ** **

It can't be stopped. It would be like trying to form a nucleus of atomic weight 400, yet keep it from being radioactive. They would only be able to contain it, shielding from it only for a while, as long as they were not part of it, which they fully intend to be.

The »Atomic Man« is actually the current design, an »atom« design, with orbiting »particles« around a massive nucleus. But they haven't the means to sustain the »Weak-force« which allows the two »particles« to stay distant. Assuming they don't wake up before hand, they will all irresistibly unite. SAM comes after that point, because they are currently too focused on accomplishing their lust at all cost (billions of people).“ **

You mean the postive and the negative particle. But what is the social metaphor for them? I guess it is the metaphor of the positive and the negative „communal particle“.

1534

James S. Saint wrote:

„Correct.
Or in the film, The Matrix, it is the Architect and his System of Machines vs the Zionists. The film series ended with a truce between them just before the System wiped out the Zionists. But how long do truces last? Their proposed »truce« is the »Weak-force« keeping them apart.“ **

This is the »Saturn« stage. But then they have to go through the »Jupiter« stage. Then the Black-hole.... then, of what is remaining, RM:AO:SAM (aka »Me«) steps onto the stage, and a new game begins, without the Godwannabes.

I haven't seen the film „The Matrix«. Who is the „architect“ in that film? If the „system of machines“ wiped out the Zionists, then there sould be nor truce between them anymore. Why are you then asking how long truces last? The „Weak Force“is the force that keeps the antagonists apart. But the main effect of the „Weak Force“ is the breakup, the collapse, of the particles.

Why „»Saturn« stage“ and „»Jupiter« stage“? Is that meant astrologically?

„You“ „are“ „SAM“, and you mean the system of „SAM“ because it is without the Godwannabes. Right?

1535

According to the current physicists the pre-condition of forming a „black hole“ is the mass of a stellar object (mostly a star with more than 3.2 masses of our sun [cp. the so called „Oppenheimer-Volkoff-Limit“]) which later becomes this „black hole“. But what is the pre-condition according to your RM:AO?

1536


James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I haven't seen the film ›The Matrix‹.« ** **

You're kidding.
No. I am not kidding.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»If the ›system of machines‹ wiped out the Zionists, then there could be no truce between them anymore.« ** **

In the second sequel of the three films, the Machines were about to overwhelm the Zionists. But the superhero, Neo, was working on a truce with the machines. At the last minute, the machines stopped because Neo accomplished his truce. The series ended with »a new day« forming.“ **

So „Neo“ was one of the Zionsts or one who helped the Zionists. Right?

But please stick to your statement (a) and to my reply (b): You said (a): „The film series ended with a truce between them just before the System wiped out the Zionists.“ (**). I replied (b): „If the ›system of machines‹ wiped out the Zionists, then there could be no truce between them anymore.“ (**|**). When one is wiped out, then there is no truce bewteen this one and others possible.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The ›Weak Force‹ is the force that keeps the antagonists apart. But the main effect of the ›Weak Force‹ is the breakup, the collapse, of the particles.« ** **

?? I am not aware of the weak-force being involved in any breakup other than in its failure to hold a particle close to another without letting them touch. It was called a »weak« force because it weakly holds them together (electrons and nucleus). But in reality, it is the strongest force in the universe because it is impossible to overcome it such as to allow the electrons to actually meet the nucleus, regardless of impact speed.“ **

Wikipedia wrote:

„In particle physics, the weak interaction is the mechanism responsible for the weak force or weak nuclear force, one of the four fundamental interactions of nature, alongside the strong interaction, electromagnetism, and gravitation. The weak interaction is responsible for both the radioactive decay and nuclear fusion of subatomic particles.“

I said „breakup“, „collaps“, Wikipaedia said „decay“. Okay?

James S. Saint wrote:

Arminius wrote:

»Why ›'Saturn' stage‹ and ›'Jupiter' stage‹? Is that meant astrologically?« ** **

»Saturn« represents the time when there is a huge core of society surrounded by many smaller societies, »the rings of Saturn« (similar to an atom, thus the »Atomic Man« stage. »Jupiter« represents a time when all have united into a single large society, the Globalist's fantasy utopia. And the »Black-hole« is the time when the effort to be more efficient stitches all things tightly together into a critical mass that allows nothing to exist that isn't a part of the »system« and allows nothing to leave the system = »Environmental Protection Agency« recycling ALL things with NO waste whatsoever.“ **

So that is not meant astrologically, isn’t it?

James S. Saint wrote:

Arminius wrote:

»You ... mean the system of ›SAM‹ because it is without the Godwannabes. Right?« ** **

After the »Black-hole« forms, it is seen that the only way to continue to exist as an intelligent life form, is to disperse into millions of relatively independent small anentropic families via SAM. At that stage, the entire notion of anyone wanting to be a God is well seen to be childishly naive.“ **

So there is a way for life and even for human beings to continue, but it is an only way. And you are the one who shows that way, right?

1537

But is „Neo“ a „Zionist“ or a helper of the „Zionists“?

1538

The current „convention“ of the physicist about the four fundamental interactions (forces) of nature is as follows:

First there was one unified force (fundamental interaction) of nature, than seceded: (1.) the gravitational interaction (a.k.a gravitational force or gravity), (2.) the strong interaction (a.k.a. strong or strong nuclear force), (3.) the weak interaction (a.k.a. weak or weak nuclear force), (4.) the electromagnetic interaction (a.k.a. electromagnetic force or electromagnetism) - the latter two (3. and 4.) were one unified interaction (force) before they separately seceded: elctroweak interaction (a.k.a. electroweak force).

This secession „took place“during the Quark era (a.k.a. Quark epoch), thus after the Planck era (a.k.a. Planck epoch).

 

NACH OBEN 515) Arminius, 18.07.2014, 00:27, 00:47, 01:09, 01:18, 01:29, 01:43, 02:06, 02:28, 03:23, 04:06, 04:26, 11:09, 11:35, 13:00, 14:04, 14:31, 14:37, 15:02, 23:00, 23:06, 23:39, 23:53 (1539-1560)

1539

I am not talking about the „big bang“. I am talking about the „Grand Unified Theory“ („G.U.T.“) which includes the separation of the four fundamental interactions (forces) of nature from one unified interaction (force) of nature.

1540

James S. Saint wrote:

„In the long run, only the most insidious, least ethical, and greatest murders of the rest of homosapian, responsible for the creation of machines, will be left. Now »should« those people be allowed to inherent the Earth as their kingdom? Or »should« the machines go ahead and get rid of the fowl vermin that they are?“ **

In that case it would be better that the machines „get rid of the fowl vermin“.

What do you think?

1541

James S. Saint wrote:

„Good question. I'm not sure that I know the answer to that one ... yet.

I have always held a devotion to homosapian ... but ... hmm ....“ **

The most insidious, least ethical, and greatest murders of the rest of homosapian?

That has to be forbidden under penalty of death!

1542

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I am not talking about the ›big bang‹. I am talking about the ›Grand Unified Theory‹ (›G.U.T.‹) which includes the separation of the four fundamental interactions (forces) of nature from one unified interaction (force) of nature.« ** **

Well, if you are talking about the reality of the make up of the universe,
the electric potential comes first,
then electric propagation,
then magnetic »electric concentration« (together as »electromagnetic radiation«).
Then gravity (or »mass«),
then »strong force«.
Then »weak force«.

But it isn't a time sequence. There was never a time when all of it didn't exist at the same time.

It is more easily understood in terms of Affectance its varied density.“ **

Yes, according to your RM:AO, but unfortunately the physicist don’t know your RM:AO.

1543

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»That has to be forbidden under penalty of death!« ** **

For what purpose?“ **

The purpose is that that penalty can prevent the mass murder!

1544

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Yes, according to your RM:AO, but unfortunately the physicist don't know your RM:AO.« ** **

Yeah, but they never used to know their Quantum Physics either (and would have been better off never learning it).“ **

Why would it „have been better off never learning“ the Quantum Physics?

1545

The mass murderers can believe what they want; if there is such a law, then they will be punished. Merely if laws allow mass murderers to act as they want, and the whole judiciary, the state, and the society are corrupt, then there is no possibility (anymore) to punish them.

1546

James S. Saint wrote:

„Oh I could arrange such punishment.
But I have to believe it is »the right thing to do« (and I have seriously high standards for such things).

If I accept that they really »should be« punished, it can be arranged that only the machines survive.
But what is the limit to forgiveness?“ **

No, this was meant generally. Mass murderers have to be punished. End.

1547

Which „incentives“ would you give mass murderers?

1548

James S. Saint wrote:

„All it takes (as the physicist are aware) is an increase in affectance density („energy density“) over a larger physical space than a particle could sustain.

That is why they suspect that it might dissipate. As a particle, it would have to shrink. But what they don't show the understanding of, is that the new »super-particle« would automatically begin absorbing »mass« from the space itself, something that they cannot detect or currently imagine it seems (although Krauss has indicated some understanding in that regard).

What it takes to cause a black hole is not a huge star, but rather merely a high concentration of energy into a small space, larger than a monoparticle could sustain. Once it is formed, if it is not seriously isolated from any mass field (as in far, far into the inter-galactic space) it stands a good chance of never stopping from absorbing energy endlessly.“ **

When I say „according to the current physicists“ (**|**), you don’t accept that, do you? Not seldom you seem to overread the term „according to the current physicists“. I mean the statements of the current physicists, although they are mainstream physicists, „exist“, don’t they? This mainstream physicists say that the gravity is probably the most important force, you say that affectance or electromagnetic force is most important. Why should they always be „wrong“? They say a mass of 3.2 masses of our sun are needed for forming a „black hole“, you say: „What it takes to cause a black hole is not a huge star, but rather merely a high concentration of energy into a small space, larger than a monoparticle could sustain“. Who is right?

1549

James S. Saint wrote:

„The time required for affects to add to each other cannot be absolute zero.“ **

As JSS said before: „Absolute zero is merely one divided by absolute infinity and thus cannot exist either.“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Due to that limited rate of adding affects, when affects merge in such a way as to require more than an infinite change rate, the affects continue to attempt adding at the same location while any additional propagating affect must wait for time to pass. - »Inertia«.“ **

What is the amount of „that limited rate of adding affects“?

James S. Saint wrote:

„A clump of affectance noise forms around a point of inertia due to extended delays and is supported only by affectance leaving the volume at an equal rate as entering it forming a stable »Particle« – a »standing wave« of noise.“ **

Noise is not possible without the electromagnetic force. But why is that clump of affectance noise and not a different „effect“ of EMR? And is a particle merely a „»standing wave« of noise“ and nothing else?

1550

The affects continue to attempt adding at the same location while any additional propagating affect must wait for time to pass, but why does any additional propagating affect have to wait? Is it because of the limited rate of adding affects, and if so, why is there a limited rate of adding affects, and why can't the waiting affects not also attempt adding?

What does „Da“ in „Da-Affectance Density“ mean?

1551

James S. Saint wrote:

„I CAN explain the Double-slit experiment without using magical properties or quantization.“ **

Would you mind explaining the Double-slit experiment without using magical properties or quantization?

1552

So you are saying that, actually, there is no gravity. Right?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Oh... and now I see what they are calling the »weak force« (what they used to call the »strong force«). Today the »strong force« is what holds quarks together and the »weak force« is what holds protons together. Those two »forces« are actually identical. And a quark isn't actually a whole particle.“ **

They say that the strong nuclear interaction (force) holds the whole nucleus of the atom together, not merely the quarks, but also the hadrons (baryons and mesons) which are composed of quarks. And they say that the weak nuclear interaction (force) underlies some forms of radioactivity, governs the decay of unstable subatomic particles such as mesons, and initiates the nuclear fusion reaction that fuels the Sun. The weak force acts upon all known fermions—i.e., elementary particles with half-integer values of intrinsic angular momentum, or spin. Particles interact through the weak force by exchanging force-carrier particles known as the W and Z particles. These particles are heavy, with masses about 100 times the mass of a proton.

1553

Idioticidioms wrote:

„Gravity is an illusion just as much as our notions of »up« and »down«“ **

An illusion or not an illusion: it has a cause! Either this cause is the gravity itself, or it is something else which is the cause of the gravity. Perhaps the cause of gravity is an electromagnetic one.

James S. Saint wrote:

„But the fact remains that gravity cannot exist at all without electric potential but electric potential can exist without gravity. Thus electric potential is »more fundamental«.“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Gravity is constructed out of electric potential, as is the weak force. The strong force is constructed out of gravity.“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„A gravity field is merely mass spread out in a region. A mass particle is merely a very dense spec of highly concentrated gravity field. And both the gravity field and mass are made of nothing but electromagnetic radiation, EMR.“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Electrostatic => Electromagnetic
Electromagnetic => Gravity
Electromagnetic => Weak force
Gravity => Strong force.“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Well, if you are talking about the reality of the make up of the universe,
the electric potential comes first,
then electric propagation,
then magnetic »electric concentration« (together as »electromagnetic radiation«).
Then gravity (or »mass«),
then »strong force«.
Then »weak force«.

But it isn't a time sequence. There was never a time when all of it didn't exist at the same time.

It is more easily understood in terms of Affectance its varied density.“ **

So: (1) electrostatic => electromagnetic, (2) electromagnetic => gravity, (3a) electromagnetic => weak force, (3b) gravity => strong force.

Or: (1) electric potential, (2) electric propagation, (3) magnetic electric concentration« (together as electromagnetic radiation), (4) gravity (or mass), (5) strong force, (6) weak force.

1554

Idioticidioms wrote:

„What if it were both a cause and effect? What if something caused the effect which caused the effect which caused the effect to repeat and become what it is?“ **

You mean an eternal „ping-pong-match“ of cause and effect? And what do you mean with „it“? The gravity? Or just any interaction (force) ?

1555

Idioticidioms wrote:

„Well, the »it« would be more than just the gravity, it would have to be what caused it and what was affected by it as well as what the gravity causes and what it affects. »It« would be the process.“ **

What would it exactly be?

1556

James S. Saint wrote:

„So I would tend toward the lines of »reprogramming« the former mass murderer, »converting enemy to friend« (just making damn sure that I did it right).“ **

„Reprogramming“ and „converting enemy to friend“: isn't that too trustful, too naive?

1557

Physicists have been admitting that there are two physical „worlds“ for them: (1) the „world of classical physics“ and (2) the „world of quantum physics“.

1558

Copied post in another thread.

1559

I'm afraid we will have to continue to live with these two „worlds“. This „worlds“ are similar to e.g. the subject/object-dualism and the existence/nothingness-dualism, which we have already discussed several times.

1560

Please tell me what you think about the following text:

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAGNMoJIi_Y

Take a good look. // I know what you see. // Shrouded in black, // and all life's debris
Shot in the back, // live through the day, // ain't no remorse, // you do as they say.
Ohhhhhhhh, // ohhhhhh, // ohhhhhhhh, // ohhhhhh.
Now that i've seen whats come & past, // forget all thats pure; it never lasts, // inside a mass murder machine.
Victims for life. // Slaves to the end, // rooted and sick. // How it's always been.
Ohhhhhhhh, // ohhhhhh, // ohhhhhhhh, // ohhhhhh.
Built to destroy // one can't deny, // the hole that becomes, // the hand in the sky.
Ohhhhhhhh, // ohhhhhh, // ohhhhhhhh, // ohhhhhh.
Now that i've seen whats come & past, // forget all thats pure; it never lasts, // inside a mass murder machine.
Now that i've seen whats come & past, // forget all thats pure; it never lasts, // inside a mass murder machine.
I wish I was done. // Yeah, I wish I was done, ohhh. // I wish I was done. // Yeah, I wish I was done, ohhh.
I wish I was done. // Yeah, I wish I was done, ohhh. // I wish I was done. // Yeah, I wish I was done, ohhh.
Ohhhhhhhh, // ohhhhhh, // ohhhhhhhh, // ohhhhhh.
Now that i've seen whats come & past, // forget all thats pure; it never lasts, // inside a mass murder machine.
Now that i've seen whats come & past, // forget all thats pure; it never lasts, // inside a mass murder machine.
Now that i've seen whats come & past, // forget all thats pure; it never lasts, // inside a mass murder machine.

 

NACH OBEN 516) Arminius, 19.07.2014, 00:09, 00:36, 01:23, 01:57, 02:35, 03:00, 03:24, 03:46, 04:10, 22:34, 22:38, 22:43, 23:35 (1561-1573)

1561

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»›Reprogramming‹ and ›converting enemy to friend‹: isn't that too trustful, too naive?« ** **

Not any more complicated than particle physics. You trust them to make »safe« nuclear weapons, don't you?“ **

No, I don’t trust them!

1562

James S. Saint wrote:

„Yes, but risks must be taken.

If you had one kingdom all about how to destroy people and another all about how to save people, both with risky weapons to suit their agenda, which kingdom would you want to be standing closer to?“ **

Are we not discussing the theme „machines and mass murder“ at the moment?
I said:
The purpose is that the death penalty can prevent the mass murder. ** ** ** **
Mass murderers have to be punished. ** **
And my questions were:
Which „incentives“ would you give mass murderers? ** **
Reprogramming‹ and ›converting enemy to friend‹: isn’t that too trustful, too naive? ** **

1563

„My kingdom is not of this world.“

Okay, I'm on your side, James. Which side is it?

1564

Yeah. But nevertheless: the „policy of deterrence“ and the „policy of cuddling“ can be successfully used by both sides, and in the case of mass murder the death penalty has to be a very valid law, even then, if all human beings are bad and accomplices of the mass murders, so that all laws are merely a formality and the anarchy an everyday occurrence.

In the long run the real libertarianism is anarchy; in the long run the real egalitarianism is anarchy; in the long run the real synthesis of libertarianism and egalitarianism is anarchy, but called humanitarianism.

But you will get the anarchy sooner, if there is no „policy of deterrence“ at all.

1565

Both cases bring the machines, but the first case with punishment, which is the more „traditional“ case, wins time by procrastination, while the second case with cuddling, which is the more „modern“ case, wins some people by „reprogramming“, as you call it. As a „chief accountant“ I would say that the first case is more efficient. So I prefer that first case. Call me „old-fashion“.

1566

James S. Saint wrote:

„So are you »certain« efficiency is the best aim? 100% certain?“ **

Relating to those two cases there is no „best aim“, James, because the differences between those two cases are too small, and both cases are bad, too bad.

1567

James S. Saint wrote:

„That is why I said, »Which do you prefer standing closest to?« I am not asking which you prefer to be, but rather which you would rather have nearer to you as they do their thing (which is real, btw).“ **

Yes, I know. And because of those small differences I said: „As a »chief accountant« I would say ...“ (**|**) . One has to be very micrological in order to find those very micrological differences.

1568

James S. Saint wrote:

„So your answer stands?

A) That you prefer that I condemn you for what you currently are and not take the risk that you might learn something and become even worse?

B) The alternative is that I assess you for what you might learn and take the risk that you might become even better.

So far, you have chosen (A).“ **

I could say the same to you:

So your answer stands?

A) That you prefer that I condemn you for what you currently are and not take the risk that you might learn something and become even worse?

B) The alternative is that I assess you for what you might learn and take the risk that you might become even better.

So far, you have chosen (A).

1569

James S. Saint wrote:

„I thought that I chose B ...?“ **

No. You chose „the second thing“ (=> 2), the second case, and not „B“.

1570

I say:

That you prefer that I condemn you for what you currently are and not take the risk that you might learn something and become even worse.

The alternative is that I assess you for what you might learn and take the risk that you might become even better.

You don't want to learn?

But before we quarrel we should note that our aspects or viewpoints are very close. So why shouldn’t I agree to the reprogramming and you to the punishment of mass murderers? So why shouldn’t I come on your side (b.t.w.: I’ve already said: „I'm on your side“ (**|**) or you on my side? You don’t want to learn? Okay, then I will do it for you. Why are you so positive about „reprogramming“? Because of „SAM“, I know, and you „are“ SAM, I also know, but why are you so sure that you will be successful?

1571

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.

1572

James S. Saint wrote:

„»Who is right« has become a critically important question, even more important than »What is right«. I have found that there is a large gap between truth and mainstream. And that is why Science was founded on »Nullius in Verba«, »take no one's word«. And that is also why I created RM, so that individuals, without billions of dollars of equipment and education can find out for themselves what is principally true.

When it comes to the principles of the universe, anyone who can logically deduce, can know what must be true, without being told by mainstream anything.“ **

I also have found (for a very long time, b.t.w.) that there is a large gap between truth and mainstream, and I am interested in what you have created.

1573

„News“ for US people:

The „contrast“ of being „conservative“ and being „liberal“ in the USA means the „contrast“ of being „conservative/liberal“ and „socialist/politically-correct“ in Europe. That's absurd and ridiculous.

The „war“ between conservative and liberal „parties“ in the USA or the „war“ between „conservative/liberal“ and „socialist/politically-correct“ „parties“ in the EU are merely the stage play with which to keep the masses confused and distracted while conquering them. Motto: divide and conquer!

 

NACH OBEN 517) Arminius, 20.07.2014, 01:24, 04:14, 04:34, 04:41, 05:16, 17:22, 18:13, 18:38, 19:00, 22:56, 23:09, 23:14 (1574-1585)

1574

James S. Saint wrote:

The Physical Particle.

In nature, in extremely dense regions such as the center of a star, subatomic particles form due to electromagnetic noise being so high that it congests into »traffic jams« that don't go away. A sub-atomic particle is simply a traffic jam of perpetual EMR noise. The noise didn't think to itself, »We need to form a particle«. Each tiny bit of noise was independently and simply trying to go its way. The particle formed because noise slows other noises in the same way that cars on a highway can slow other cars into a »slowdown« or even »traffic jam«. And at a certain critical density, the traffic jam simply won't go away because for every bit of noise or car that leaves another is already arriving. And what is called the »potential« or »charge« of the particle is determined by whether most of the noise was of increasing potential or of decreasing potential (commonly known as »electric potential«). If there is the same amount of increasing as decreasing noise potential, the formed particle is neutral (a neutrino or neutron). If most of the noise was increasing, the particle is called »a positive charged particle« (a positron or proton). And if most was decreasing, the particle is called »a negative particle« (electron or anti-proton).

Each particle type can only exist in an ambient field of its relative opposite; a positive particle can exist only in a relative negative field and a negative particle can only exist in a relative positive field. And that is how you get the notion of the familiar Yin-Yang symbol, although it doesn't reveal the common neutral particle that can exist in a neutral ambient field.

But don't be mislead by the tempting and common notion that these particles are »Equal and Opposite«. They most certainly are not. Even though they are opposite in potential and have many similarities, the end result of being negative in a relative positive environment is significantly different than being positive in a relative negative environment. And that is why they find that the common negative particle, an electron, is much smaller than the most common positive particle, a proton. A positive particle tends to acquire more mass (amount of noise) than a negative particle. The traditional Yin-Yang symbol is misleading. Let me explain the significance of that issue as it relates to people.

Enough of the physics.

The Communal Particle.

Similarly if 1000 people were to be placed out in a wilderness with no means to be anywhere else, a »Communal Particle« would automatically form. Again, it need not be that anyone thought, »we need to form a community«. Each person need merely to try to live. The interaction of such people forms a community without anyone deciding to form it. It is a natural occurrence that is in fact difficult to avoid.

As the community begins to form, there is almost never anyone saying, »Okay Mr Jones, you be the farmer. And Jacob, you be the carpenter. And Goldstein, you be the banker....«. Instead, the people simply do what is more natural for them to do at that time, in that circumstance, and with their experience. The interaction of what is simply their effort to live and go their own way becomes a stable community, without intent to form it. And through time, even though the people come and go, the community will generally continue (assuming it was stable). Such is a natural occurrence, not in need of design or intent (assuming there were enough people with the right talents = »dense region«).

And as the communal particle forms, it will most naturally have both »positive affects« and »negative affects«, »cooperative people« and »uncooperative people«, or perhaps »constructive people« and »destructive people«. And what determines the »potential« of the community is the balance of how much positive-noise to negative-noise happens to be there as the community forms, how many constructive people vs destructive, or cooperative people vs antagonistic people. If the number of positive people and negative people are the same, the community will be a neutral community having both within. Of course people are not really entirely positive or entirely negative, just as EMR noise isn't, but if gauged by their average, each person will register as more of one than the other in that environment.

But note that a charged particle can only exist within an ambient field of its relative opposite. For a »positive community« to be stable, it must be within a region of negative (destructive or uncooperative) influences. Perhaps those influences are merely the natural weather or soil conditions of the region. Perhaps there are a great many random trouble makers. But there must be a negative influence, else the positive community will simply dissipate. In society, as with a mind, this is seen as »the goal to achieve« or »the purpose of the gathering«. If the goal or purpose is already achieve and no longer has anything destroying it, the society cannot be maintained. Once the emperor conquers all of the lands in sight, the empire falls because they were only being held together for the purpose of conquering.

A community forms naturally by people merely trying to live. But a kingdom or empire forms by specific people artificially trying to form it, people using people only for the purpose of forming a gathering (a communal particle) which they can be reign over. That one aspect of human behavior is what sets it apart of other animals of nature. It causes great conquest, but also leads to eventual failure soon after the conquest or purpose is achieved. A kingdom or empire is not a stable communal particle except while it is growing or fighting a war (the required negative influence).

Note that the positive or negative nature of the community is not specifically chosen, but rather the natural consequences of the nature of the people involved. The attempt to demand that the community be specifically positive or negative in any regard after a gathering has already accumulated would be a tremendous struggle against nature and reality. To intentionally choose what is to be considered positive or negative is tampering with the forces of life itself. If a governance attempts to demand obedience to an architecture or even subtly trick people into unwitting obedience, it is challenging natural physics and will have a great endless struggle on its hands which will eventually lead to great success and certain imminent failure.

An artificial society; kingdom, empire, socialistic, unrestricted capitalistic, or communistic can be formed and do quite well, until it runs out of enemies. And then it requires artificial adversaries; created terrorists, false flag attacks, criminal or antithesis organizations. A natural society; tribal, township, or restricted capitalistic can remain stable simply because it never runs out of natural adversaries.

Every stable particle, whether a simple physical sub-atomic particle, a particle of the mind, or a communal particle can only be stable within an ambient field of its antithesis. When that field becomes too positive favoring the communal structure, a catastrophic failure of the community or society cannot be avoided. And what is declared positive or negative is not a choice, but decided by the ambient.

The fact that a community cannot stably choose its positive nature, is why religions, such as Christianity, attempt to »spread the word« concerning the benefits of being harmonious. By creating an ambient field of cooperative people, a positive, constructive society can form. But if whatever has been dubbed »negative« is not the true exact opposite of Life itself, Life will not be the positive nature of the gathering. Life will be lost by the sacrifices from an attempt at artificial structure and conquest. In the fall of an artificial community, artificiality is lost rather than as the Life it tried to control.

Life and physical nature are workable, programmable, and tolerant, but they cannot be entirely controlled without being entirely lost. And they don't lose easily. My suggestion is to stop trying to create artificial communities unless they are the very definition of what Life is so that the only required and supporting antithesis will be natural physical anti-life and thus have no need for artificial, very expensive, and inherently catastrophic controls attempting to keep it together.

Life is a very specific, although difficult to discern, architecture in nature. It requires neither artificial adversary, Man, artificial incentives, nor machine. When a society is forced to focus too much on artificial adversaries, the structure of Man, artificial incentives, or utilization of machines, it is facing immanent catastrophic failure from which it cannot change its own nature and thus once close to conquest, cannot change its course into oblivion.

In all societies, a tipping point is reached where there is no longer a choice, whether the society has artificial support or just happens to have chosen the wrong thing to call »Positive«.

And by the way, a digital world is entirely artificial and far from the definition of Life.

Brought to you by:
Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology: Sociology 101.“ **

Well done, James!

I took the liberty to highlight some words, because I think that they indicate that the „communal-particle-idea“ is similar to the „back-to-nature-idea“ that Kant has put into Rousseau’s mouth, as well as some ideas of Heidegger and, later, the ecological party „Die Grünen“ („The Greens“- since 1990 this party has been being no ecological party anymore).

1575

Echo wrote:

„Evil me. Angel me.“ **

Yes. But if you look at the pictures very carefully (**), you could also say that it is the reverse:

Angel me. Evil me.

1576

It's just like this:

**    **

1577

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.“ **

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“ (**|**).

1578

Phoneutria wrote:

„Would like to see some pictures at this point.“ **

Which one would you like to see?

I don't know your preferences. Therefore, here are some examples:

**
The left person is the „good lookin' one“.

**
Walpurgisnacht with Faust
.

**
When posting on ILP.

****
Resemblance.

**
Abstract
.

**
Without comment.

Which one do you like most?

1579

If there were the Olympic games for the photos of this thread, I would give the three medals to the poster of the following photos:

1) GOLD:
**

2) SILVER:
**
Because of this:

3) BRONZE:
**

1580

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.

Physics is logically provable, but not 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«.“ **

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

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

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“.

1581

James S. Saint wrote:

„But in the USA, Socialism is directly ANTI-Constitution, and actually illegal. So they have to hide doing it, pretending to be a capitalist nation, pretending to be supporting the Constitution, pretending to allow citizens to vote for Presidents, pretending that citizens have any rights at all.“ **

In the EU it is the same!

1582

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.“ **

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“ (**|**).

1583

First you do not have enough money, because you have plenty of time, then you have not enough time to prevent being destroyed by the rulers.

1584

I live quite independently of money. It's not merely me or you, but we all or almost all - about 99% (!) - I primarily meant.

1585

What do you think about that „tiny quantum energy bubbles as a foam“ (**), James?

 

NACH OBEN 518) Arminius, 21.07.2014, 00:05, 01:32, 02:21, 05:03, 19:45, 19:52, 22:23, 22:48, 23:04, 23:29, 23:59 (1586-1596)

1586

Phoneutria wrote:

„Anyway.... Here is a picture of some handsome fellows.

....“ **

I see. Is that the picture you like most?

The following picture shows the first (1911) of that conferences:


(1) Walther Nernst, (2) Robert Goldschmidt, (3) Max Planck, (4) Marcel Brillouin, (5) Heinrich Rubens, (6) Ernest Solvay, (7) Arnold Sommerfeld, (8) Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, (9) Friedrich Lindemann, (10) Maurice de Broglie, (11) Martin Knudsen, (12) Emil Warburg, (13) Jean-Baptiste Perrin, (14) Friedrich Hasenöhrl, (15) Georges Hostelet, (16) Édouard Herzen, (17) James Jeans, (18) Wilhelm Wien, (19) Ernest Rutherford, (20) Marie Curie, (21) Henri Poincaré, (22) Heike Kamerlingh Onnes, (23) Albert Einstein, (24) Paul Langevin.

1587

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

1588

Okay, I don't live quite independently of money, but I live partly independently of money. In terms of money I am not very rich, but also not poor.

Anyway. .... Many people have to re-learn the abandonment, the abstinence. You and I know that gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little, but many other people don't know that.

Arminius wrote:

„Due to the fact that the money economy, also known as monetarism or finance, is too much in line with energetic resources we would have a very much better economy, if it were more in line with knowledge, wisdom, information than with energetic resources.

Another point is the relation of production and reproduction. All fertility rates have to be almost equal, and after that (not before and during that) the rich and the poor will also become more equal, not equal - because that is impossible -, but relaitively equal. That is a fair deal. Else the result will be: Stone Age or even extinction!

But the more the machines are successful the more the human beings are threatened with extinction.

So we have three great modern human erros or mistakes: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

Hyperbolism, hedonism, utilitarianism, individualism and all the other nihilisms are those problems, which became as much bigger as the attempt to control them in order to prevent chaos, anarchy, and - last but not least - overthrow, downfall. It's a vicious circle.

So a solution of the three great modern human erros or mistakes seems to be impossible: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

No one wants to take responsibility!

Do you have any suggestion?« ** **

1589

The US and the EU have no real possibility to decide whether they give or refuse Israel supports, because that decide those on whom the US and the EU depend. Whatever will be done in this case, the cause of that will never be a decision of the US or the EU.

Even if only one of the so-called „politicians“ would dare to operate a different policy, he would not be able to gain an election, or would even be killed.

1590

Phoneutria wrote:

„Here is a picture of an eye.“ **

Let me guess: It's is your eye, and your most secret username is „Photoshop“.

1591

Evening wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The following picture shows the first (1911) of that conferences.« ** **

Now those two pictures - that and the one above, I like. Is that a younger Einstein 23 above?“ **

Yes.
____

**
You have a very nice avatar, Evening. To me it is the best I have ever seen in this forum. Congratulations. And I also like your username very much. That is a good omen to me. Congratulations, Evening.

That's nature, that's life, that's culture, and that's beauty!

1592

James S. Saint 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 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.

1593

How many machines are in the „humanised (mechanised) world“?

1594

To you, there is no hope for the human beings, right?

1595

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»How many machines are in the ›humanised‹ (mechanised) world‹?« ** **

»Approximately 1,966,514,816 computers« (2 billion).

»As of 2012, there are 1.1 billion automobiles on the earth, which is a 57% increase from the 700 million automobiles that were on earth's roads just 8 years earlier in 2004.«

The number of »machines« is probably uncountable but just the two largest categories gets us to approx. 3 billion.“ **

From whom (human/s) or what (machine/s) have you got that numbers?

Golem.de: „Roboter - Mensch: fast 1:1“ („robot - human: almost 1:1“), that means at least 7 billion robotics (!).

**

1596

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»To you, there is no hope for the human beings, right?« ** **

„I wouldn't put it at zero just yet, but it is really pushing it hard and fast.“ **

But to you (and b.t.w.: not to me!) the end of history would be almost the same like the end of human beings, right?

 

NACH OBEN 519) Arminius, 22.07.2014, 00:12, 02:44, 03:15, 04:17, 04:22, 04:42, 05:05, 09:55, 09:57, 10:17, 10:29, 10:44, 11:02, 11:42, 11:42, 11:42, 13:07, 13:17, 14:06, 14:12, 14:57, 17:02, 23:27 (1597-1619)

1597

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

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.

1598

According to Karl Marx the capitalism is a pre-condition to communism because he was a Hegelian, a Left Hegelian. There has to be the thesis capitalism (wealth) before the antithesis communism (egalitarianism) can take place and lead to the synthesis. So there has to be wealth before anything (namely: that wealth!) can be distributed. Therefore Karl Marx expected the „revolution“ to take place in Germany because Germany was the most advanced country. If Karl Marx had lived one century later than he did, he would have said that the „revolution“ in Russia was a farce. Why? What happened? In Germany where he had expected the „revolution“ did not occure, but instead of that the „revolution“ occured in Russia 1917 - with causes, reasons which were the reverse of that he had expected, and under pre-conditions he had never expected because Russia was a Third world country, no advanced country. And because Russia was not advanced enough Stalin forced the Russians / Soviet population for industrialisation, and because of this forced industrialisation 40 million or more people died (even by pogroms and propaganda trials). That was not what Karl Marx expected in the century before that farce and mass murder.

A country has to be rich or wealthy because without richness or wealth it is not possible to distribute it.

P.S. Your statement about working for the Western intelligence services (**) can also be interpreted in the reverse way.

1599

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.“ **

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“?

1600

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»To you, there is no hope for the human beings, right?« ** **

Just web searches, such as Number of cars in the world. No telling where they got their numbers.“ **

And Ask.com, right?

1601

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, is it?

1602

James S. Saint wrote:

„My solution for;
Philosophy (and thus all thought) is RM - Rational Metaphysics
Physics (and thus all physical interaction) is AO - Affectance Ontology
Psychology (and thus all human behavior) is PHTMOT - Perception of Hopes and Threat, Memory, Ontology, and Time,
Sociology (an thus all governance and religion) is SAM - Social Anentropic Molecularisation,
Economics (and thus all money and trade issues) is IJOT DJ - Integral of Joy Over Time and a Dairy of Joy.

I instilled SAM into a church once a few years back, unfortunately the church was already on the edge of bankruptcy and didn't really have a good leadership sufficient for a good SAM prototype. But in the short time it had, it resolved every problem they presented to it. From their perspective, it worked »miracles« by resolving what they worried about most (they just didn't know what problems they had to worry about most - yet).

SAM is very patient and tolerant. It doesn't care who or what you worship as long as you do it properly (meaning in the SAM way). In the long run you will learn. SAM removes deception from the mind and world of Man - through time. But until you can witness a good prototype, it takes too much explanation to feel confident about it. Once witnessed, it is pretty simple and easily empirical.
What do you exactly mean by »Integral of Joy Over Time and a Dairy of Joy« and how does it work in the long run?“ **

What do you exactly mean by „Integral of Joy Over Time and a Dairy of Joy“ and how does it work in the long run?

1603

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“?

1604

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.

1605

James S. Saint wrote:

In Sight of SAM. It is the beginning of a better form of economy.“ **

Excuse me, but that's too general!

1606

It is a pity that there is still no real census of machines, no real counting of machines.

The reproduction rate of humans is currently at 1.25. And the reproduction rate of the machines?

1607

If history is lost but human development not lost, then you can see the real Eloi or the „renaissance“ of the Stone Age life.

1608

Do you intend to form a SAM corporation? Or have you already formed any?

I think that currently the SAM corporations can „survive“ only in the shadow of globalism, of the Glozis because they are to powerful. As long as Sam corporations do not cause problems to Glozis they are tolerated, otherwise destroyed.

1609

Which religion or religious confession would or should be appropriate for your sam corporations, James?

1610


Mags J. wrote:

„Perhaps we need to eliminate the silly thoughts in order for the profound ones to rise to the surface of the mind and be viable?“ **

Or you should get a new brainteaser?

Do you remember the first brainteaser I posted in the thread „Post a picture of yourself“?

I will soon start a new brainteaser for you.

Are you ready, Mags?

1611

Fuse wrote:

„Volition.“

Mags J. wrote:

„Resolution.“

So are you ready, Fuse and Mags?

You should try to get a new brainteaser award! :wink:

Do you remember the first brainteaser I posted in the thread „Post a picture of yourself“?

I am going to start a new brainteaser for you - soon.

1612

All other members of this forum are invited too.

1613

The next brainteaser follows:

**   **   **   **   **   **  
**
  **   **   **   **   **

To whom belong these 12 avatars?

1614

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«.“ **

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

James S. Saint wrote:

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

Yep.

1615

Mags J. wrote:

„Great advertising you've been doing there Arminius... are you sure you don't work in thqat industry?“ **

Yes, I am sure that I don't work in such an industry. I get no money for it - yet.

1616

All other members of this forum are invited too. ** **

1617

James S. Saint wrote:

Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGv8PQr8Uo4.“ **

Unbelievable! But true!

1618

Fuse, you must stop now. Come quickly. I have a 2nd thinking task, a 2nd brainteaser (**|**), for you.

1619

Fuse wrote:

„And we've picked up the difficulty, oh dear.
Hey at least no one will ever have trouble matching you with your avatar, Arminius.
1.
2.
3. Hermes (the; HB) Thrice Great
4.
5. Ru (Realunoriginal; HB)
6. Evening
7. Typist
8. Iconoclast? (I believe that was really just Ru again)
9.
10. Abstract
11.
12.“ **

Hey, Fuse, this time it is not so easy, is it? But until now you lie in front with your answer!

I think Mags is browsing the entire forum in order to win, because she wants to get flowers.

Timeout: Wednesday, 24th of July 2014, 00:00 h.

Okay?

Good luck!

 

NACH OBEN 520) Arminius, 23.07.2014, 03:09, 03:33, 03:40, 04:25, 22:17, 22:26, 22:59, 23:10, 23:19, 23:39, 23:43, 23:58 (1620-1631)

1620

Obe wrote:

„History will never be lost, only the sense of it will be lost. Keep the sense of it, You keep history.
Can this be done?“ **

If the sense of history will be lost, then it will make no sense to have history at all, because there will be no one who knows anything about both the sense of history and the history itself. There will be no historian, no one who knows what history and ist sense is, probably even no one with a sense for the meaning of the past for both the present and the future.

If history will totally become also a part of a modern ideology like any other cultural phenomeneon, then it will be merely part of a religious system, although a modern one, and no longer be its own system - provided that some other historical existentials (**|**) will also be lost -, so the ideological (modern religious) system and its language (media) will be able then to „sweep“ history under the ideological (modern religious) „carpet“ and afterwards nnihilate it. That will be done, if the chance will be there - certainly. We have been seing this bad development because it has been becoming more and more obvious. Interestingly it has been having a correlation with the modern development of the machines (**|**) and all the other modern developments. Thus: amongst others the machines are strongly involved in that process.

1621

Copied post in another thread.

1622

SAM“ works only when the number of population of the „communical particle“ remains very low.

1623

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

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.

1624

James S. Saint wrote:

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.

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.« ** **

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.“ **

But how would you define a „particle“ then?

1625

James S. Saint wrote:

„Perhaps this picture will help:

It is showing the relation of affectance potential to affectance density. The ambient determines positive from negative potential and the frequency (or change rate) determines the density (»mass field«, »gravitation field«, and/or »energy density«).“ **

You wrote in that picture (for example): „Affectance Potential“ and „Affectance is the Changing of the Potential to Affect“. Thus the „Affectance Potential“ must be the „Changing-of-the-Potential-to-Affect-Potential“.

1626

Moreno wrote:

„It seems to me to have any certainty about the end of history, one must have great certainty about the variables for change and contact. IOW it would presume things like the standard model in physics is, say, 95 percent complete and we can from this and standard models in chem and bio, determine likely possible changes and encounters and, well, potential modes of life. Personally I think current science covers a much smaller % than its utterly loyal adherents have decided (intuitively!). So to me there is something more hypothetical than is stressed in the thread. If these standard models are correct and we generally extrapolate from them correctly and with good strong intuition, then the end of history is or will come [enter date or process step].“ **

Yes, and with the utmost probability those standard models are correct.

1627

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»It is a pity that there is still no real census of machines, no real counting of machines.

The reproduction rate of humans is currently at 1.25. And the reproduction rate of the machines?« ** **

Machines that make other machines or themselves or machines made by humans?“ **

Both.

1628

James S. Saint wrote:

„If humanity continues doing what it is doing, they will simply write a new history now and then in order to give that »sense of history« significance. Socialist regimes require a cause to be fighting for and against (manufactured terrorism). And that cause cannot be viewed as never changing, else there is no perceived hope. So a new history that presents the idea of „hope on the horizon“ has to be written and instilled into the minds of people from time to time = revolving history.“ **

A „new history“ can also be no history, but merely a so called one, i.o.w. an ideological (modern religious) myth, a mythological propaganda.

1629

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»According to Hans-Peter Raddatz those ›four levels‹ are:

1) World ›nobility‹ (upper ›nobility‹).
2) State ›nobility‹ (middle ›nobility‹).
3) Dressage ›nobility‹ (lower ›nobility‹).
4) Masses.

Interestingly the governmental politicians are not a part of the state ›nobility‹ (middle ›nobility‹), but merely a part of the ›nobility‹ (lower ›nobility‹). The state ›nobility‹(=> 2) and the dressage ›nobility‹ (=> 3) shall unite to one ›nobility‹; both shall become one dressage ›nobility‹ because states shall vanish.« ** **

Speaking of nobility, The SAM Corp. is the very peak of nobility. Nobility doesn't get any higher.

Nobility is an issue of trustability or reliability. The Nobles can trust each other, but to do what? The SAM Corp brings trustability far above historical barriers and exposes all agendas.

The SAM Corp is too Noble for most noblemen.“ **

Too noble? If so, that would be a good omen, wouldn't it?

1630

„Arminius wrote:

»›SAM‹ works only when the number of population of the ›communical particle‹ remains very low.« ** **

True. It cannot grow large and still be a SAM corporation, communal particle.

To get a large gathering, one must have very many relatively independent SAM corps. who network together for trade. This constitutes a »molecule of particles« that grows into the body of Man.“ **

The biggest challenge is the self-containedness, the sufficiency, the autarchy (autarky).

1631

The whites and especially the white males seem not to need foreign race or all females for their genocide because the whites do it themselves: auto-genocide!

Examiner.com: „Liberal professor calls for genocide, says white males should commit suicide.“ This „liberal“ „professor“ is white and male.

 

==>

 

NACH OBEN

www.Hubert-Brune.de

 

 

WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

NACH OBEN