URAIN, on 31 January 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:
Dear Anilkumar, I have not any personal differences with you.
You are a good communicator.
I have already said in my previous post that what will come from me that will convince you in this
matter.
I have requested for assistance from the members but no one given response to that.
Now my writings are completed and I am contacting a person from other side.
If you are in truth side (means if you are open minded), then you will not worry.
If your are with your arguments or with your self side, then definitely you will worry.
In present I only say that YOUR ARGUMENT WILL NOT STAND STABLY. They will be fail.
( If I posted my writing here, then it will not eligible to publish from a journal. Therefore please
forgive me for not posting my writings in this forum.)
I will wait.
---------------------------************************
ajb, on 31 January 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:
Journals usually ask that the work not be published before. By this they really mean in another peer reviewed journal or maybe a scientific monograph or similar. Journals accept submissions that have been placed on the arXiv, presented at seminars or conferences. I expect they will have no problem if you outlined things here, on a webpage or blog.
You should not let trying to get published completely stop you discussing your work. That said, before I have a preprint on the arXiv I only talk to people I trust and am not in direct competition with. If there is some conflict of interest, then tend to say straight away. Anyway, unless you discuss your work with other experts how can you tell you are doing anything interesting?
ajb, do you feel that this argument of mine has the merit to be placed on the arXiv?
---------------------------************************
swansont, on 31 January 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:
Why do you accept length contraction and time dilation, but not curvature? Your objection to one but acceptance of the other seems inconsistent.
Why? "Space curvature" is illogical. I have given logical explanation all through. Length contraction & Time dilation are natural occurrences, Space curvature is not one. It is a human conclusion, adhered to, albeit a wrong one.
swansont, on 31 January 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:
. . . The geometry of space depends on the local conditions. If you are in a moving frame, you see an effect on length and time. If you are in an accelerating frame, you see a different (more complicated, perhaps) effect on length and time.
Space has no Geometry. Geometry is the attribute of physical structure, not the vacuous.
---------------------------************************
Dovada, on 1 February 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:
Anikumar you asked:
There are two ways of viewing our environment (called space-time). You asked "Doesn't Matter occupy space?" its just as valid if you asked "Doesn't space occupy matter?".
". . . Doesn't space occupy matter?"
To occupy, one needs a physique. Space doesn't have a physique.
To give occupancy, one needs to be empty/vacant. Space is the empty vacancy.
Dovada, on 1 February 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:
Electromagnetic energy occupies our immediate environment, such that there is a point whereby solid matter becomes fluid matter. From this perspective we could say that our planet exists within the extended fluid body of our sun (A doughnut body). As is already known using electromagnetic radiation theory the doughnut becomes physically larger as it moves further away from the sun.
This doughnut can have electromagnetic properties that actually create the illusion of a space-time. If this is the case then matter can utilize that doughnut electromagnetic energy in its own physical structure and the existence of the electromagnetic properties can be used by matter to move itself under an effect commonly referred to as a gravitational field.
Everything ultimately;
including the doughnut, electromagnetic energy,
needs/occupies
empty, vacant, non-physical Space.
Dovada, on 1 February 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:
Whilst you say both space and time are both inert and have a non-physical entity, then having a non-physical entity they become invalid as physical descriptions of phenomena.
I didn't say
"space and time. . . have/having a non-physical entity."
I said Space & Time are non-physical entities,
All phenomena occur in Space & Time.
Dovada, on 1 February 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:
. . . Gravity on the other hand can then become electromagnetic in nature and we have a completely new ball game. . .
Many assumptions held by physicists today maybe misleading us, such that the term vacuum of space creates the impression there is nothing there but emptiness. Space is a term defined as "A continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied". This expanse if occupied is no longer free and should not be called space.
". . . This expanse if occupied is no longer free and should not be called space."
When occupied; the existence of Space does not become invalid. The Occupant exists in Space.
When occupied; the Occupant & the giver of the occupancy-the Space, subsist together.
Matter cannot exist without Space.
Dovada, on 1 February 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:
. . . The physical empirical electrical and magnetic constants confirm that the expanse called space-time actually has electromagnetic properties.
From this point of view Anikumar, there is something in what you are trying to say.
". . . space-time actually has electromagnetic properties."
spacetime represents the Space & Time expanses illustrated in terms of 3 spatial+1 temporal dimensions. It cannot have any other property except describing the when & where of an event.
This post has been edited by Anilkumar: 7 February 2012 - 04:31 AM