Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz |
| 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
| 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
| 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 |
<= [511][512][513][514][515][516][517][518][519][520] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1507 |
| 1508 |
„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.“ **
„And I still don't know what you mean by »inaugurated him as one of them« (**|**|**|**).“ **
| 1509 |
„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.“ **
| 1510 |
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).“ **
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.“ **
|
| 1511 |
„Can you provide a link where my explanation is obviously »well known« by anyone, young or old?
„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.“ **
| 1512 |
| 1513 |
„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.“ **
„Because the potential to affect is not identical anywhere, actualization of affect takes place everywhere.“ **
„As affect occurs between adjacent potentials, waves of affect propagate randomly in both direction and magnitude.“ **
„When propagating waves of affect act upon the same point, their affects are added.“ **
| 1514 |
„An inauguration is a ceremony to announce a member into a group, usually as a leader.“ **
| 1515 |
„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?« ** **
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/infinityWhich 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«.“ **
| 1516 |
„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).“ **
|
| 1517 |
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.“ **
| 1518 |
| 1519 |
„Yep, good analogy (**|**).
And RM:AO was designed specially to get out of that cave (**|**).“ **
| 1520 |
| 1521 |
| 1522 |
„Right, but only as a whole ratio.“ **
„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.“ **
„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.“ **
| 1523 |
„There are four levels of intelligence in society. The top level is involved in forming what it is that you call »Truth«.“ **
„Some do so with deception in mind in order to gain a prize.“ **
„Very few do so altruistically.“ **
| 1524 |
„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.“ **
| 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.“ **
|
| 1526 |
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 (**).“ **
„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.“ **
| 1527 |
„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.“ **
| 1528 |
„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.“ **
| 1529 |
„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.“ **
| 1530 |
„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.“ **
| 1531 |
| 1532 |
„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).“ **
| 1533 |
„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).“ **
| 1534 |
„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.
| 1535 |
| 1536 |
„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.“ **
„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.“ **
„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.“
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.“ **
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.“ **
| 1537 |
| 1538 |
|
| 1539 |
| 1540 |
„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?“ **
| 1541 |
„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 ....“ **
| 1542 |
„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.“ **
| 1543 |
„Arminius wrote:
»That has to be forbidden under penalty of death!« ** **
For what purpose?“ **
| 1544 |
„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).“ **
| 1545 |
| 1546 |
„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?“ **
| 1547 |
| 1548 |
„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.“ **
| 1549 |
„The time required for affects to add to each other cannot be absolute zero.“ **
„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«.“ **
„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.“ **
| 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 |
|
| 1561 |
„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?“ **
| 1562 |
„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?“ **
| 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 |
|
| 1574 |
„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.“ **
| 1575 |
„Evil me. Angel me.“ **
| 1576 |
| 1577 |
„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.“ **
| 1578 |
„Would like to see some pictures at this point.“ **
| 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 |
|
| 1586 |
„Anyway.... Here is a picture of some handsome fellows.
....“ **
| 1587 |
| 1588 |
„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
| 1590 |
„Here is a picture of an eye.“ **
| 1591 |
„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?“ **
 |
| 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.“ **
|
| 1597 |
„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.“ **
| 1598 |
| 1599 |
„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.“ **
| 1600 |
„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.“ **
| 1601 |
„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.“ **
| 1602 |
„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.“ **
| 1603 |
| 1604 |
| 1605 |
„In Sight of SAM. It is the beginning of a better form of economy.“ **
| 1606 |
| 1607 |
| 1608 |
| 1609 |
| 1610 |
„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?“ **
| 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 Arminius... 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.“ **
|
| 1620 |
„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?“ **
| 1621 |
| 1622 |
| 1623 |
| 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 |
==> |
|
