<= [511][512][513][514][515][516][517][518][519][520] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
511) Arminius, 14.07.2014, 19:36, 19:43, 20:36, 22:00 (1507-1510)
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!).
James S. Saint wrote:
Primarly he wrote books. Did he also make films?James S. Saint wrote:
He was one of them.
A text from MNN:
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 (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).
James S. Saint wrote:
As one of the three, yes, that is possible.James S. Saint wrote:
Maybe. I have included my wishes and hopes.We could be in the Matrix right now (**|**) - what do you think about that statement? |
512) Arminius, 15.07.2014, 00:00, 00:08, 01:41, 02:19, 21:29, 22:46 (1511-1516)
James S. Saint wrote:
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 and logic are not always congruent, else they could be synonyms, but they are not synonyms.
The word inaugurated means something like the word adepted, right?
James S. Saint wrote:
That's what I meant, but I used some other words.James S. Saint wrote:
But would the actualization of affect also take place then, if the potential to affect were identical?James S. Saint wrote:
Why randomly? Probably because of the different adjacent potentials, directions, and magnitudes, right?James S. Saint wrote:
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?
James S. Saint wrote:
Yeah, and that's almost exactly what I meant.
James S. Saint wrote:
Right, until there is something to establish a pattern or order, there is only disorder or randomness, »Nothing is possible until something is impossible«.
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) ?
James S. Saint wrote:
For comparison: the current world GNP = 70 trillion US dollars.
|
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)
James S. Saint wrote:
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 burns a fire. 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.
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 (**).
James S. Saint wrote:
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?
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.
You mean: 1 toe / 1 tic = (299,792,458) 1 m / 1 s. Right?
James S. Saint wrote:
As a whole ratio, yes.James S. Saint wrote:
Do you think that you will be successful?James S. Saint wrote:
So until now toes and tics are still your auxiliary constructs?
Okay, I forgive you.James S. Saint wrote:
Would you please name the other three levels?James S. Saint wrote:
Relatively many do so.James S. Saint wrote:
That's true.
James S. Saint wrote:
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), |
1525 |
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. **
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)
James S. Saint wrote:
I thought so, but I wasn't quite sure. Thank you.James S. Saint wrote:
Thank you, James.Why didn't you write a book about your RM:AO?
James S. Saint wrote:
Let me guess: Black hole.
James S. Saint wrote:
YOU then spawn the Big Bang?Do I have to get afraid, James?
James S. Saint wrote:
What kind of Big Bang is it then?
James S. Saint wrote:
SAM = Social Anentropic Molecularisation, I guess.
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?
James S. Saint wrote:
Hedonism has been existing for a long time, and when it will lead into pur hedonism, as you said, will that be the black hole as a social metaphor, the singularity because of the most extreme individualism?
James S. Saint wrote:
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.
James S. Saint wrote:
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 Forceis 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?
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?
|
1537 |
1538 |
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)
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.
James S. Saint wrote:
In that case it would be better that the machines get rid of the fowl vermin.What do you think?
James S. Saint wrote:
The most insidious, least ethical, and greatest murders of the rest of homosapian?That has to be forbidden under penalty of death!
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, according to your RM:AO, but unfortunately the physicist don't know your RM:AO.
James S. Saint wrote:
The purpose is that that penalty can prevent the mass murder!
James S. Saint wrote:
Why would it have been better off never learning the Quantum Physics?
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.
James S. Saint wrote:
No, this was meant generally. Mass murderers have to be punished. End.
Which incentives would you give mass murderers?
James S. Saint wrote:
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?
|
1550 |
1551 |
I CAN explain the Double-slit experiment without using magical properties or quantization. **
1552 |
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. **
1553 |
Gravity is an illusion just as much as our notions of »up« and »down« **
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«. **
Gravity is constructed out of electric potential, as is the weak force. The strong force is constructed out of gravity. **
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. **
Electrostatic => Electromagnetic
Electromagnetic => Gravity
Electromagnetic => Weak force
Gravity => Strong force. **
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. **
1554 |
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? **
1555 |
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. **
1556 |
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). **
1557 |
1558 |
1559 |
1560 |
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)
James S. Saint wrote:
No, I don't trust them!
James S. Saint wrote:
Are
we not discussing the theme machines and mass murder at the
moment? |
1563 |
1564 |
1565 |
1566 |
So are you »certain« efficiency is the best aim? 100% certain? **
1567 |
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). **
1568 |
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 |
I thought that I chose B ...? **
1570 |
1571 |
1572 |
»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. **
1573 |
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)
James S. Saint wrote:
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).
Echo wrote:
Yes. But if you look at the pictures very carefully (**), you could also say that it is the reverse:Angel me. Evil me.
It's just like this:
James S. Saint wrote:
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 (**|**).
Phoneutria wrote:
Which one would you like to see?I don't know your preferences. Therefore, here are some examples:
|
1579 |
1580 |
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.
At the very most fundamental level, the Electric Potential is nearly identical to the Potential-to-Affect, PtA. And thus the resultant Affectance is nearly identical to the Electromagnetic Radiation, EMR. But Affectance can also be understood simply as »Energy«. **
I don't use common physics terms in RM:AO because of the misunderstandings commonly associated with them, even though technically, there is a great deal of similarity. **
The universe is filled entirely with nothing but an ocean of Affectance motion, obeying Logic at every instant. **
1581 |
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. **
1582 |
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. **
1583 |
1584 |
1585 |
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)
Phoneutria wrote:
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.
The family name of Max Planck was not Plank, but Planck.
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:
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.
Phoneutria wrote:
Let me guess: It's is your eye, and your most secret username is Photoshop.
Evening wrote:
Yes. |
1592 |
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«. **
1593 |
1594 |
1595 |
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. **
1596
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. **
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)
James S. Saint wrote:
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.
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 himself, 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.
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, but not in any case.But let us stay closer to the topic: the galaxies or even the universe itself as a great particle?
James S. Saint wrote:
And Ask.com, right?
James S. Saint wrote:
A multiverse is not a good idea for you, is it?
James S. Saint wrote:
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?
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?
My question was directed more to the WORD noise. I understand it also as a reasonably loud sound / noise. But since English is not my first language, I'm not sure. whether you meant it that way. Noise can't be loud in almost empty spaces of the universe because wil there are hardly any transfer agent.
James S. Saint wrote:
Excuse me, but that's too general!
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?
If history is lost but human development not lost, then you can see the real Eloi or the renaissance of the Stone Age life.
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.
Which religion or religious confession would or should be appropriate for your sam corporations, James?
|
1611 |
Volition.
Resolution.
1612 |
1613 |
1614 |
Well, in English, the word »noise« merely refers to meaningless random sounds, not especially loud. For loud noise, we say, »Loud Noise«. **
And the Affectance equivalent would be bright white light or even plasma. **
1615 |
Great advertising you've been doing there Arminus... are you sure you don't work in thqat industry? **
1616 |
1617 |
Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGv8PQr8Uo4. **
1618 |
1619 |
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. **
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)
Obe wrote:
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.
Copied post in another thread.
SAM works only when the number of population of the communical particle remains very low.
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: |
1624 |
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. **
1625 |
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«). **
1626 |
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]. **
1627 |
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? **
1628 |
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. **
1629 |
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. **
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. **
1631 |
==>
|