URAIN

Dear (physics) experts,

Recommended Posts

URAIN    1

(copy paste is causing of adding two words. Please make adjust while reading.)

 

 

Silence is the indication ofACCEPTANCE

 

Silence is the act of IGNORE,

 

Silence is the act of DISREGARD.

 

 

There is neither ridiculing nor objection

 

No one supporting, nor appreciation

 

 

All experts are in the great silence (aboutURAIN paper).

 

Forums always focus on truth.

 

Forum’s always object untruth.

 

 

Silence will not focus the truth

 

Silence will not object the untruth.

 

 

 

I not think that any experts of this forumignoring me.

 

 

They were read my paper and reading my thread’salso.

 

 

They are hesitating to give response to me.This is the fear of calling them, as science rival,

 

 

and my paper also going towards oppositeto present established science. Expert’s are

 

 

thinking that, other than me any one maybe give response. But I will not give the response.

 

 

 

 

But I have a satisfaction that as I guessed,science has not contain IAURN and MBA YBN like peoples

 

 

( IAURN =I am All U R Not

 

 

MBA YBN =My Belonging is All, YourBelonging is Not)

 

 

My paper says mainly these followingthings.

 

 

1) Matter does not occupy space.

 

 

2) This universe contain five standardexistences.

 

 

3) Expansion of space.

 

 

4) Hypothesis of Origin of universe.

 

 

5) Hypothesis of Neutron.

 

 

Experts not have any objection with 1and 2. From my paper’s explaining, they accept matter not occupy space.

 

 

Second one is only looking the ‘nature’ indifferent way.

 

 

But as I understand, about last three things expertsare not coming to the perfect decision. May be they are in confusion. They areasking themselves, where gone the science established beliefs, in the name ofdark matter, dark energy. Without these expansion of space is unbelievable andother things are opposite to established science.

 

 

At first, my paper was read by Ajb. I think hehas not any objection, if I share his opinion in this thread. (There is noany private thing, hence I can share.)

 

 

His comments...

 

 

1) Your paper tries to answer the age oldquestion, what is space?

 

 

2) You are saying space is independent of matter. In mathematics we are also say this.

 

 

3) As I know space not comes in PHYSICS. It isMETAPHYSICS.

 

 

Because we can't test it. It isnot physical, hence it not comes in physics.

 

 

(Do you think that publicationpublish this? Best of luck.)

 

 

4) A theory is mathematical construction,hence yours is not a theory.

 

 

 

Ajb, as per 4th comment you may be sayanything as URAIN theory or URAIN paper. I have no objection.

 

 

But 3rd (and 4th) comment is like sayingas,

 

 

Your belonging is not physics.

 

My belonging is physics.

 

 

Don't worry, I am not saying that you are aMBA YBN.

 

 

Actually you are a very good behavior person.

 

 

(If voting is held for goodbehavior person then my vote is ready for voting in favor of you. In yourbehavior I have not seen any manipulation.)

 

 

Ajb if I say same thing to you, then I expectthat you also not say me as MBA YBN.

 

 

Because I have not any bad intention. I amsaying only truth.

 

 

Dear Ajb, sorry, Your belonging is notphysics.

 

My belonging is real physics.

 

 

.

 

Ajb, you belongs to the Mathematics and allmathematics is not belongs to the physics.

 

 

Because mathematics contain

 

 

a) -1 and it'saddition (-1,-2,-3,-4…. …. … )

 

 

Dear Ajb, As per METAPHYSICS Prem ParvathiPrinciple, this world contain only 0 and 1 and there is no existence -1 in this real world.

 

 

Because 0 & 1 are the existence. (0,1 = existence)

 

 

-1 is opposite to the 1.

 

 

Opposite to the “existence” is “not existence”.

 

 

Hence -1 is “not existence”. (-1= not existence)

 

 

Prem Parvathi principle repeatedly says that-1 (not existence) has not existed in this world and only 0, 1 are existed frometernally and for forever.

 

 

Therefore in origin time also only 0 and 1 hadexisted and from this only universe is originated. (In future also only 0 and 1will be exist. You may check PP Principle.)

 

 

 

Inpresent science theories taking us towards, to assume, at origin time only 0was existed.

 

 

Aftersome times +1 and -1 were emerged from 0. This is the reason for origin ofuniverse.

 

 

(Many scientific theories are indicating towardsthis only)

 

 

Present science also believed that from +1 and-1, 0 will be form (+1-1=0). O will not form from any physical calculation. Itis the eternal existence and self existed.

 

 

Hence saying that from +1 and -1, 0 will form.It is purely contradiction. In this universe -1 has not existed and will be notexist in future also.

 

 

(It is only sign of one region, from one man,from one entity something is losing.

 

 

For ex: If a man has 5 ball’s and he gives 1to other’s, then to mathematically explain how many ball’s existed in now inthan man, this -1 is used. But in real world there is no existence of -1.)

 

 

Hence in real world of physics, calculation of+1 and -1 is not taking place.

 

 

As per my paper this universe (URAIN atom)contain only,

 

 

a) Empty space = N=0

 

b) Denser space = M=1(M=>1)

 

c) Continuously movingspace =E, 0<E<1 (N<E<M)

 

 

(If we consider M as 1,then that’s E will be in between 0 & 1.)

 

 

Hence there is a no chance of existing -1(E=-1). It is impossible.

 

 

As related to the expansion of space. Theeternal existence 0 and 1 will not destroy to each other. The 1 which wasexisted more denser, it converting to less denser. Every existence has it’s ownspace, hence space of universe is increasing.

 

(Addition of mathematics says result should beincrease.)

 

 

 

Dear Ajb you had said space is not testable,(during that time I have not sent neutron hypothesis).

 

 

I ask you, did you or any one tested NEUTRON directly. Chadwick work also gotacceptance from only secondary effects and by conservation, momentum laws.

 

 

In “what is charge” thread I have asked thequestion. Does mass and charge are relative?

 

 

But your answer is silence.

 

 

Please see, relativity says E=MC^2. Energy andmass are interchangeable.

 

 

Mass= Energy ----1

 

 

You and forum experts given new definition ofenergy as “conserved charge”.

 

 

Energy = charge -----2

 

 

Then, is not it saying like, Mass = charge. (Think a bit.)

 

 

By scientific experiments it is acceptedneutron has not any charge. It does not give any ionized path.

 

 

Neutron has not any charge then, how (withoutmathematics) you (Physicist) accept that chargeless particle has the mass.

 

( where all observations are indicating thatcharge and mass are relative.)

 

 

 

URAIN paper clearly proves that thefundamental, neutral existence of this universe is only empty space and thishas not any mass. (This is only possible small existence of this universe.)

 

 

All thinking are suggesting towards neutron isempty space.

 

 

You had said space can not be testable. Henceit is not a physics. It is only the metaphysics.

 

 

Does you (mathematicians) not apply this samerule to the neutron. Is neutron was tested directly? Or it will be testeddirectly.

 

 

How science accepted, it as belonging ofphysics. Any one scientist will not explain the behavior of neutron activitywithout using the word, ‘may’ ‘might’. Chadwickhimself written article with heading “Possible existence of neutron”.

 

(If anyone describe it without using word of‘may, might’ then he is not a scientist.)

 

 

Explaining nuclear reactions scientist say‘neutron’ might the reasonfor chain reaction. It is continuing the nuclear fission. They again says, as acontinuation of this, as after influencing reaction it will be decay.

 

 

What is meaning of decay? As I know decaymeans destroy.

 

(If anyother meaning exist in science, for decay word. please make me familiar.)

 

 

If it has mass then how it is destroy. Is itnot opposition scientifically accepted law.

 

 

(As per Prem Parvathi principle anything,space also not destroy.)

 

 

Science & you accept neutron as part ofphysics and not accept the space as physics. It is, how righteousness?

 

 

And you mathematician’s considering -1 notexistence as a part of physics.

 

 

For this reason I have said that

 

 

Your (complete) belonging is not physics.

 

My belonging is physics.

 

 

Dear Ajb (and mathematicians) please askyouself, It is how scientific that, considering or

 

believing notexistence in physics. (Dark matter, dark energy, negativity till now,these are not come to know.)

 

 

And it is how scientific of considering existence (space, it is aexistence) out of physics.

 

 

Really it is not scientific.

 

 

( Before translating Prem Parvathi principleto English, I was started topic about limitation of conservation law in four different science forums.One forum (sciforum.net may be not forum but member) given more importance tothe language than subject. I left that.

 

 

In other forum (thescienceforum.com/physi…) previously month ago Ihad said I will paste link in the thread which I was started. After onlypasting link, link removed by saying “forumwill not allow to promote your’s.”

 

 

I hadleft forum seeing the kind of thought of that moderator. Presently I am onlydiscussing in two science forums. One is net other is com.

 

 

I hope that I will not quite from this forumand any one will not promote then also truth will not die.)

 

 

Thanks to all experts/members for reading.

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

URAIN, do not use the main physics forum to soapbox your personal speculations.

Read the pinned notices and rules before posting:

Please note that all posts that are baseless in scientific fact or that are outside of mainstream physics can and will be moved to the Speculations forum. Make sure that you think about the nature of your post before you hit the "post" button.

 

I read your previous post, but did not comment on it as it was indistinguishable from gibberish (It did not appear to format correctly, which possibly contributed to this).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ajb    1567

The paper you are talking about, in my opinion is really metaphysics. It does not contain the mathematics or any real testable ideas to really face up to strong criticism as a physics paper. Therefore I think it is philosophy at best.

 

I cannot see any way of really assessing if physically space-time can exist independent of any matter of fields. We know that space-time is filled with fluctuating fields and the naive notion of a vacuum is not truly realised. Also, we do not directly detect space-time. We probe it via test particles, for example light rays. One can "trace" the local geometry of space-time using light beams. Via this (and other things) we know that the notion of space-time is well-founded and in particular we know that general relativity describes our world very well. But does space-time really exist?

 

 

I don't really know how to answer that. It appears as a something we indirectly see via our experiments. In that sense it exists and we can understand much of physics in terms of the geometry of space-time. To me as a mathematical physicist as long as the mathematical notions give rise to reasonable theories of nature then I do not think too hard about what exists and what does not. The observable parts of the theory are what are really important and how they match with nature. My general philosophy here is that the only real things are things we can measure. Not that I think too hard about this.

 

That said, we know on a small enough scale things cannot be so nice. It is experted that the quantum nature of gravity will change what we mean by space and time on the smallest scales. So space-time as we classically understand it probably is not the full picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
swansont    6169

People may ignore you for a number of reasons. A "wall of text" that rambles on is one deterrent, and triple-spacing does not help. Since your posts do not follow the kind of path that physics discussions follow, it's hard to make sense of it. Science, and science communication, has protocols. You need to follow them.

 

Science also must be testable and falsifiable. If what you present does not include a model, or a clear way to test and possibly falsify the idea, it's not likely to be considered science. As ajb notes, it reads a lot more like metaphysics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ajb    1567

People may ignore you for a number of reasons. A "wall of text" that rambles on is one deterrent...

 

This is a big turn off for me on this forum.

 

Walls of text generally just go on and on with little real content. If is far better to pose a question, make a point or comment on something using as little text as possible. Keeping it clear and concise is the best. Let the discussion flow from there...

Edited by ajb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phi for All    4744

Also, posting your concept to people's profile page (I must assume you're doing this to others as well as me) is often unwelcome. This is a discussion forum and unwanted, behind-the-scenes conversations about what you post in the main forums is NOT a good way to get positive attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
URAIN    1

(I was not known unofficial(wall) rule of this forum.

 

 

By activity and behavior of some persons of this forum were seemed to me as open, free minded persons.

 

For this I was understood them as like, my near and dear.

 

 

You may not feel it, that the time, when I released my paper {which contain the scientific established "matter" definition is wrong} that was my celebration day and that paper was my dream of many years. I was thought that it to be shared with my near and dear.

 

I am sorry, I have misunderstood some people as my near and dear.

 

These are URAIN words, that in future, I will not share my happy and sorrow moments personally with the persons, who are objecting this now, as like I have done crime. But I may reach any position but my doors are always open to share happy and sorrow.

 

 

About protocol,my writings may be different but there is no unacceptable and untruthful things in my writings. I may not use this style in future, but anyone will not restrict this in my personnel writings or in my papers.)

 

Experts, I hope you will give importance to the subject than personnel comments and will not divert the direction of the discussion.

 

Experts,why you are again and again, saying that yours is metaphysics.

Did in any time I was rejected this?

 

(This is only an act, making slow down to me or trying to keep me outside of physics.)

 

 

I think you are well aware, how the scientifically accepted conservation law was originated and now come to known as established law of physics or science.

 

At starting .~550 BCE this law was a principle of philosophy. As time passed, itis applied to different natural phenomena. Now it is known as scientifically accepted law.

 

(History of law of conservation energy.

Ancient philosophers asfar back as Thales of Miletus c.~550BCE had inklings of the conservation of which everything is made. However,there is no particular reason to identify this with what we know today as"mass-energy" (for example, Thales thought it was water). In 1638, Galileo publishedhis analysis of several situations—including the celebrated "interruptedpendulum"—which can be described (in modern language) as conservativelyconverting potential energy to kinetic energy and back again. It wasGottfried WilhelmLeibniz during1676–1689 who first attempted a mathematical formulation of the kind of energywhich is connected with motion(kineticenergy). Leibniz noticed that in many mechanical systems (of several masses, mi each with velocity vi ),) (Source-http://en.wikipedia....ation_of_energy)

 

 

Conservation law was not originated from any experiments. At first, it was originated in themind of philosophers (After that only it is tested). Hence, once upon a time, this law was also a metaphysics principle.

 

Mine PremParvathi Principle was introduced only two years ago and it is tested by logical equivalence relations and proved as "not existence has never existed in this world". If any one have objections about it, please place it this thread.

 

(In any condition it will not disprovable.)

 

 

This principle has only age of two years. But as time will pass, it will be a strongest law of physics. And science will include things now which are out of physics.

(You may note down it. This is said on 26/02/2012)

 

If present physics is not a study of existences, then in future definitely physics will be study of all universal existences, including space. For this main reason will be Prem Parvathi principle. (Till I have left one thing. I am thinking that time, and place should be suitable to share this.)

 

You may accept or may not but physics is not a study of, "not existences" as like mathematics. ( Below 0 is not existence.)

 

As per thread topic, out of three experts (who given response) only one expert given answer to only one question of my above post.

 

Ajb,without hiding anything you are openly accepted that mathematics is the study of both, existence and not existence.

 

You are again and again bringing space-time and GR in the discussion of my paper. Did you were seen any comment about GR or space-time, in my paper. In Anilkumar thread also I had said to him that "what will come from me that will convince you". I had not said that, I will say about space-time or GR for convincing him.

 

If space and space-time are different, then please don't bring space-time, GR in the middle of this discussion. (Till I have to see it in my way of thinking.)

 

Dear experts you have not commented about

 

1) Expansion of universe

 

2) Neutron hypothesis

 

3) Origin of universe, which is in my paper. Is my reasoning and explanation is correct or wrong.

 

 

In my paper I have proved that "matter does not occupies space". If it is truth, then it has not needed anyone's acceptance. But science experts are always truth accepter's. therefore I am asking that, do you accept that matter not occupies space or not?

 

Don't ignore this question and don't divert the subject of question, while answering please.

 

 

(It isclearly explained that how matter not occupies space in my paper which is on blog http://spaceandconsensus.wordpress.com)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ajb    1567

Ajb,without hiding anything you are openly accepted that mathematics is the study of both, existence and not existence.

 

What do you mean by existence in this context?

 

 

 

If space and space-time are different, then please don't bring space-time, GR in the middle of this discussion. (Till I have to see it in my way of thinking.)

 

My justification is that general relativity gives us our best understanding of space and time.

 

 

In my paper I have proved that "matter does not occupies space". If it is truth, then it has not needed anyone's acceptance. But science experts are always truth accepter's. therefore I am asking that, do you accept that matter not occupies space or not?

 

Since a "lump of stuff" has a physical volume I would be happy to say that matter occupies space. The question will become obscure if we consider fundamental particles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
URAIN    1

What do you mean by existence in this context?

 

There is no destroy and no creation in this universe. This knows all. Then also these two words are using for forming of a system and for becoming formlessness of a system . If any new thing appear we say it is creation and if existing thing disappear we call that as destroy.

 

Every existence has it's own space.

 

Every one knows matter's space is measurable. It has it's own space.

 

Matter and energy are interchangeable, hence energy also has it's own space.

 

space the avoid of matter energy also has it's own space. May be it is unstable. But it will not destroy in any situation. It is proved in my paper. Although for convenience of readers, I again prove it.

 

Every one knows space (avoid of energy/ matter) exist in this universe. If this emptiness had not existed in this universe and if whole world is filled like a solid, then there was no movement existed in this universe. Movement has existed in this universe only by existence of space 'emptyness' and by denser existence 'fullness'.

 

Prem Parvathi principle says, "Nothing (not existence) has never existed in this universe". It is only eternally not existed. (Not existence =unknown of all time)

 

 

Suppose assume,

 

Eternal not existence = N (nothing).........(1)

and

 

space =S .........(2)(existed now)

 

space is unstable. Therefore, if after some times, it will disappear.

 

Anything will not destroy for eternally then also we assume that this disappear of space is eternal.

 

In that time, eternal not existence =S .................(3)

 

From 1 and 3,

 

Eternal not existence =N=S

 

It is saying like nothing or not existence also was existed at one time.

 

Because, S was existed at one time and S=N. Means N was also existed at one time.

 

It is the opposition of Prem Parvathi principle. As per this N will not come to existence in any time. N is not existence of all time.

 

Hence it is proved that S will also not destroy eternally. It will exist always.

 

(S may be known at a time and unknown at another time.)

 

It is the significance of Prem Parvathi principle which say's including space every existence was existed from eternally and will be exist for forever.

 

From this context we can say existence is only the 'space'.

 

 

Since a "lump of stuff" has a physical volume I would be happy to say that matter occupies space. The question will become obscure if we consider fundamental particles.

 

It is so sad. It was not expected by you. (Opposing for only opposition)

 

Dear readers,

 

Occupy is a process of forcefully planting authority on other existence.

or

Making other existence as own existence.

 

Occupy process happen only when two existences are existed. By single existence occupy process will not happen and after occupy process out of two, any existence will not destroy.

 

(you may consider conservation law or PP Principle it is impossible.)

 

After process two existences will not remain separate. They will become seem as one existence.

Hence it is combining of two existences.

 

Empty space has nonperishable space and nil resistance property.

 

And matter also has it's own space and more resistance property.

 

If we place any matter in the region where space (avoid of matter/energy) existed then that matter will not vanish the space. May be that space will split.

 

This is the natural phenomena. After this process do we see space and matter are as combine?

 

 

space has nil resistance.

 

If any other denser existence put in side of first matter then it will displace to other region.

 

Knowing this also, how it is correct saying that matter occupy space or Matter become one with space.

 

Every existence has it's own separate existence.

 

Dear expert's please don't oppose for only for reason of opposing.

 

If any untruthful thing you see, you are free to oppose.

Edited by URAIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ajb    1567

There is no destroy and no creation in this universe. This knows all. Then also these two words are using for forming of a system and for becoming formlessness of a system . If any new thing appear we say it is creation and if existing thing disappear we call that as destroy.

 

There is no conservation of photon number, for example. So photons can be created and destroyed, that is come in and out of existence in a finite time.

 

Particles can also be created in high energy collisions. These are subject to tight conservation laws, but still we can create particles and this happens all over the Universe. Also particles can decay into other particles. We have matter antimatter annihilation also.

 

The vacuum is also constantly "boiling" with particles coming in and out of existence.

 

I think your premise needs some tidying up.

 

 

 

Dear expert's please don't oppose for only for reason of opposing.

 

If any untruthful thing you see, you are free to oppose.

 

 

I don't think you will get much opposition. The thing is your ideas do not really contain anything concrete to test. You need very clear predictions that can, at least in principle be tested in some experiment or verified by observation. Therefore it will be hard to argue for or against using physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
URAIN    1

(I will give response to your previous post, before that please notice the following.)

 

I am not understanding how I have to deal with the "silence".

 

I will not force anyone for accepting anything (Except my most relative persons that is also only for only their wellness). It is my principle.

 

I know, experts are themselves, dedicated to established science and they have commitment with it.

 

You are commitment with established science. It does not means that you have not any commitment for the truth.

 

What is use of the commitment with established science?

 

If there is no any commitment for truth.

 

If a group not have commitment for truth then there is no use for calling that group as science group.

I think in between science and truth there is no, any lot of differences.

 

Ajb, in our personnel conversation at first you were said that "I am not aware the definition of matter".

 

After asking by me that "as an expert if you don't aware the definition of matter then who will be aware".

 

Then you were accepted that matter definition may be as you said, Matter is that which have the space.

 

It is the reason, from which I was got surprised, when you were said that "I happily accept matter occupies space"

 

For this comment, I have again explained, that how matter does not occupy space and what is occupy process ect……

 

After this also as commitment with truth you are not accepting that matter does not occupy space, in genuinely or authentically.

 

I don't know that in science from which time it was understood that "matter occupies space".

Now the time is came to, introduce the new knowledge/ new definition of matter to the world and time is came to remove the misunderstanding from the world.

 

 

If now also, if you say matter occupy space for defending established science definition, then explain how matter occupy space (as like I was explained) and prove it.

 

After saying about this only you may give response to any other thing.

 

 

 

…………………..

 

There is no conservation of photon number, for example. So photons can be created and destroyed, that is come in and out of existence in a finite time.

 

Particles can also be created in high energy collisions. These are subject to tight conservation laws, but still we can create particles and this happens all over the Universe. Also particles can decay into other particles. We have matter antimatter annihilation also.

 

The vacuum is also constantly "boiling" with particles coming in and out of existence.

 

If now also a community accept that destroy and creation of something exist. Then it is indication that they don't considering the conservation law (Now Prem Parvathi principle).

 

The community has to ask themselves as,

 

Is it a same community, which was accepted the neutron by considering the law conservation and momentum.

 

If the community is same,then

 

Why there is a partiality for consideration of same conservation law?

 

For one thing consider the conservation law and without directly checking give the nobel prize. And for other thing (photon) it will not consider the conservation law.

I think your premise needs some tidying up.

 

I think for this experts must have to join the hand with me.

(But now many experts are looking me as a untouchable of science.)

 

If any one will not join with me, then also it is possible but it takes some time.

 

 

I don't think you will get much opposition. The thing is your ideas do not really contain anything concrete to test. You need very clear predictions that can, at least in principle be tested in some experiment or verified by observation. Therefore it will be hard to argue for or against using physics.

Ajb you can check the existence space (the avoid of matter/energy) directly by observations.

 

To know, does it exist in this universe or not?

 

Only you have to accept that,you will do, what I will say for checking the existence of space emptiness. (every one may be check it.)

 

For this I have to share another thing with the world, which I have not shared till.

 

(Don't worry the time will be come as soon as possible. First you accept that you will be go in my procedure for verification of space directly (avoid of matter energy)).

 

Reply me but, first preference is as representative of experts or only as an expert, do you accept the matter not occupy space or not.

 

If now also you not accept it

(means only the authenticated not acceptance; without authentication, you also know and I also know that what is natural phenomena ) ,

then prove, how matter occupies space?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ajb    1567

Ajb, in our personnel conversation at first you were said that "I am not aware the definition of matter".

 

After asking by me that "as an expert if you don't aware the definition of matter then who will be aware".

 

I am not aware of any strict precise definition of matter that is 100% infallible 100% of the time. As far as I can tell, there is no book that says on page one what matter is unequivocal.

 

 

 

Then you were accepted that matter definition may be as you said, Matter is that which have the space.

 

It is the reason, from which I was got surprised, when you were said that "I happily accept matter occupies space"

 

Well, very pragmatically, if I have a lump of stuff, it has a physical volume that is non-zero. This of course becomes much trickier when we consider fundamental particles which are point like, though in quantum theory this is probably not entirely the correct language.

 

If now also, if you say matter occupy space for defending established science definition, then explain how matter occupy space (as like I was explained) and prove it.

 

I have no idea how you would proof this one way or the other. It sounds more like metaphysics than anything that physics could address.

 

The modern view of fields and particles is in terms of geometry and so we think of mathematical objects on or in various spaces. This seems to work well.

 

Ajb you can check the existence space (the avoid of matter/energy) directly by observations.

 

This really is metaphysics.

 

What I can say is that modelling nature using the notion of space-time seems to work very well, provided we are not in very strong gravitational fields or we consider scales near the Planck length. So, we can make prediction of phenomena, say in the context of general relativity or quantum field theory, and test these against nature. The correlation between our theories and nature is generally very good.

 

In this sense I am happy to work with the notion of space-time. If it really exists I have no idea and I am not sure what exists really means. Space-time is a mathematical abstraction of nature, admittedly one that is very useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
timo    539
I am not aware of any strict precise definition of matter that is 100% infallible 100% of the time. As far as I can tell, there is no book that says on page one what matter is unequivocal.
As a matter of fact we recently had quite a fight about the question what matter is in the German Wikipedia. The bottom line (for me) indeed is that there is no unique field-spanning definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ajb    1567

As a matter of fact we recently had quite a fight about the question what matter is in the German Wikipedia. The bottom line (for me) indeed is that there is no unique field-spanning definition.

 

Very interesting. I agree with your conclusion.

 

The deeper you explore the less applicable the "everyday" definitions. I'll pick two definitions straight from a dictionary

 

a. Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole.

 

 

b. Physics Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.

 

Both of these definitions sound reasonable for day to day use. That is until you really look into the physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
URAIN    1

 

I have no idea how you would proof this one way or the other. It sounds more like metaphysics than anything that physics could address.

 

The modern view of fields and particles is in terms of geometry and so we think of mathematical objects on or in various spaces. This seems to work well.

 

(Every one knows mathematics is study of existence and not existence.

 

And physics is the only study of existences.)

 

If you say yours is real physics, then explain and prove "how matter occupy space?".

 

1) What is space?

 

2) How space is?

 

3) what is its property? in your way.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ajb    1567

If you say yours is real physics, then explain and prove "how matter occupy space?".

 

A lump of stuff has a physical volume that you can measure. I am not sure if one can really say much more than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
URAIN    1

A lump of stuff has a physical volume that you can measure. I am not sure if one can really say much more than this.

 

For the question "how matter occupy space?", you have answered as

 

 

"A lump of stuff has a physical volume" If I interpret your statement then, in your view

 

lump of stuff = matter (or matter content)

 

Has physical volume = space.

 

In this way you had said that matter occupy space. Is not it?

 

(This is last rival argument of my paper and it is acceptable.)

 

In particular it is saying like "matter occupy it's own space" and

 

"Matter does not occupy space, other than it".

 

Unknowingly you are accepting that matter not occupy space other than it.

 

(But I was expected knowing acceptance as, matter not occupy space other than it.)

 

Ajb, In this universe emptiness has existed. If it not existed then any movement was not existed.

 

Do one experiment,

 

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

Make ahollow place on the ground. So, pierce the ground (earth) up to the depth of 10feet and width length of the hollow place should be as size of formula one race car. Sothat, a 'formula one' race car fit in the hole (cavity or hollow place).

 

As an energy,fill the fuel in the car and place the car in the hollow place with itschampion driver. Then being as champion driver of formula one race car and having fuel as energy in the car,

 

Does he able to move car even a feet forward. Being a champion he can't move the car. Because there is no empty space in front of car. The spacein front of car and backward of car is filled.

 

(Also you have to remember that matter has different forms due to the having space (emptiness) in different proportion.)

 

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

This example shows that for movement of any existence, emptiness or less denser space must be existed.

 

 

 

We see movement in every place and in atom also. It is indication that emptiness has existed in this universe. This (emptiness) is existed, that's why it is an existence.

 

In any condition matter will not occupy this emptiness.

 

( "matter not occupy space other than it. OR lump of stuff has volume")

 

Or matter can't destroy this emptiness.

 

My paper say's this thing. But you experts not understanding it.

 

And as definition of matter whole world is misunderstanding that matter occupy the emptiness. This is the thing I have to remove from world.

 

But you experts are opposing this.

Edited by URAIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ajb    1567

This is just philosophical ramblings.

 

So you make an assertion like "Matter does not occupy space, other than it", so what? To be physics you need to have some predictions of some phenomena we can observe and measure. If we cannot test this idea then we cannot really argue a position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
URAIN    1

This is just philosophical ramblings.

 

So you make an assertion like "Matter does not occupy space, other than it", so what? To be physics you need to have some predictions of some phenomena we can observe and measure. If we cannot test this idea then we cannot really argue a position.

 

I was intended to give a detailed response to your post. (I will give it later.)

 

But, time is needed to give my predictions about natural phenomena. Which you can check and observe.

 

1) "Resistance" for any movement is mainly depending on differences in between two existences density.

 

 

a) Relative more denser existence always shows high resistance, for a movement of a relative less denser existence.

 

 

b) Relative less denser existence always shows less resistance, for movement of relative more denser existence.

 

c) Nil density existence will not show any resistance to all other denser existences.

 

 

 

 

2) If two existences have same density levelthen "resistance" for movement is mainly depending on density level of twoexistences. i.e.

 

 

a) More denser existence showsmore resistance, to other denser existence.

 

b) Less denser existenceshows less resistance to other less denser existence.

 

c) Nil denser existence showsnil resistance to other nil denser existence.

 

 

(I have used "mainly" word because variation in speed of existences may slightly change in "resistance".)

 

 

Edited by URAIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ajb    1567

Are you talking about inertia?

 

You now need to make some quantitative predictions here. Something someone could, in principle take to the lab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
URAIN    1

Are you talking about inertia?

 

You now need to make some quantitative predictions here. Something someone could, in principle take to the lab.

 

I accept,for quantitative predictions, we have to go lab.

 

Do you accept my predictions without accuracy of quantity (as I said it now, as it is)? and

 

In my paper I have not said predictions in starting of paper. But it has been observed after making little of experiment.

 

I have started my paper directly by assuming property of space from the established definition of matter. It has been checked by little experiments of 2 solid rocks and by a water container.

 

 

( I have started paper directly from assumption, because I was intended to give surprise to readers. This discussion I have learnt that placing prediction at starting is, how much important ?. I will modify my paper by placing prediction at the starting.)

 

1) When we place solid in empty region then it immediately takes the place of that region.

 

 

2) When we try to place another solid in same region, (where now first solid existed)then it will not possible to take the same region.

 

3) Again if we place solid on water container, it takes the place of container and some water flows out of the container.

 

 

From observation of these things, it is possible to give predictions of my paper.

 

Do you not think same thing happen in the lab?

 

(I accept in lab correct quantitative results will come.)

 

And if we make observation of natural phenomena only this is happening.

 

 

Now, do you accept matter does not occupy the space, other than it? with knowingly.

 

I think now the time is came to say to world that "matter not occupy the space other than it".

 

 

To explain what is matter, you had said "lump of stuff have the volume".

 

From your explanation, Matter definition will be, what I had said in paper. That is,

 

 

Matter is that which have the space.

 

 

 

 

( Existence is only space. This space havemainly two types

1) empty space 2) Denser space.

 

From mixing of empty space with denser space, it (denser space) has divided into 4 types.

 

 

Totally space or universe contain five types of space in it. From this classification of space, any entity will not remain, outside of these five types of space. All existences will be included in these five types.

 

Now in matter classification some existences like photon remain outside of matter.

Reason for expansion of space: The energy coming from lots of stars is main reason for expansion of space.)

 

I propose for receiving these things in science.

 

 

I think, when this paper placed in front of all physicist they may do the test in the lab for quantitative prediction. I also contact some physicist for this.

 

As far as I know, the prediction will be only get modified for accuracy and these prediction will not fail.

 

 

What you think?

Edited by URAIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
URAIN    1

1) empty space 2) Denser space.

 

 

 

So what is space is made of that gets denser.

 

qsa,

 

As per established science this universe is made up of matter, energy and space.

 

To consider any entity as matter and energy there is almost consensus in scientific world.

 

Like which has mass that is matter and which has charge that is energy.

 

But to consider space there is no any consensus existed in present science world.

 

Lot of people have different opinions.

 

Some say, space is only a notion, it is not existent.

 

Some say it is an existence, but filled and some say it is empty.

 

My paper gives perfect opinion about space.

 

My paper says, space avoid of matter/energy is an existence. If we will not compare it with matter/energy like with any filled

 

things. Then it is a pure unperishable space.

 

 

We always compare things. So when we compare this with matter/energy it look like empty.

 

Hence paper says space is an existence and it is empty (Emptiness is main reason for movement of all existences).

 

This is one importance of my paper.

 

*******

 

Second thing my paper tries to see the world through only a single existence.

 

It is impossible to see the world through the matter or energy. Because if see the world through these, then the existences which have

 

not contain mass/ charge they will left out.

 

But if we see the nature though space anything will not left out. All existences will be included.

 

My paper says "Matter does not occupy space, other than it".

 

Matter occupy only it's own space.

 

It is like saying that matter has the space. Or space has the mass.

 

This mass containing space is denser space (energy also has some density.).

 

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

 

 

 

And Prem Parvathi principle says, now which have been existing, they are existing from eternally and they will exist for for ever.

 

On this base, I have given prediction that in origin of this universe also only these two things were existed.

 

I can't prove, how these were existed (But I have one idea). Therefore it is hypothesis of my paper.

 

 

Matter has different types and energy has lot of types may be in any one type denser space may be existed at origin time.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
qsa    4

please answer my question in a very specific manner, one or two lines will do, addressing the question and nothing else.That should also help clarify your thought.

Edited by qsa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now