Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-1 Poor


  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    lawyerns filled
  1. Dear friends it is immense pleasure to share a news with you. As you know, I am working from many years to get a consensus about space. Proving "matter does not occupy space" is my first preference ("Matter occupies space" statement comes in authentic established science definition of matter) . When I have said it then everybody opposed to this. Now it is not getting any opposition. Else some people, in other way are trying to say matter not occupies space (Member of other forum has said that matter does not occupy space, in terms of Cartesian co ordinates. I don't know more about it. Some big people like "Mark aron simpson" chairman of string theory research team also has said that matter does not occupy space. When I discussed with him. But he has said that matter is part of space. I opposed this thing. Because my views are different.) Its OK. Now my article is accepted for ISC2012 international space conference 2012 held in Ahmedabad Gujarat INDIA, held on November 30 to Dec1 2012. (Please you may see attachments.) Now science world is taking my argument seriously. In this situation I convey my gratitude to the this forum and members who were participated in this discussion. Dear friends once again thank you very much URAIN (Suryanarayan G Chimmanchodker SEDAM) notification letter.pdf (266.48K) ISC2012_Brochure.pdf (268.65K) My abstract which is sent to the conference In the established science, there is no consensus about how space is to be defined. Under different circumstances, it is perceived as a) "Not existence" (absolute nothing), b] Existence and empty (a void), c) Existence effervescing with virtual particles, and by matter occupies space statement also, space is oftentimes understood as d) being fixed and unvarying as if a container. A rule of Nature states that "resistance to the motion of an existence is mainly depending upon the density of another existence, which exists along the direction of the motion's force/net force". Therefore, an existence (an object or its absence) moves towards coordinates of lesser (or nil) resistance. Emptiness is a cause for less (or nil) resistance to the motion. Hence motion of matter, proves existence of emptiness. Thus 1) Space is an existence and empty. This space has its own size/volume. For this reason, matter will not occupy space, rather it displaces space. Therefore, movement of a matter displaces space to another region. 2) Therefore space is not fixed like a container and it is also movable. Volume of an existence is depending on density of same existence (V=M/D). If density decreases, then the volume of same existence increases. In stars, conversion of matter into energy is continuously going on. For this reason, the density of the universe is decreasing. 3) This decrease in density of universe is a possible reason for the expansion of space.
  2. Dear members Greetings, I was intended to post here, only after publishing it, in media. I was not known that "Physics today" does not publish original researches. They were given suggestion to contact the peer reviewed journal, for publishing original research. Now I have contacted a peer review journal. Publishing in journal takes some time. But I felt that posting my progress in this forum is necessary. Because, I have seen that members and experts were unable to take decision about the space. I have hope that it may help them to take the decision about space. While writing the paper "Understanding Universe with URAIN" I was had some new idea. That was expressed through the simple experiments and Prem Parvathi Principle. But as per experts, I was not followed scientific method. In this forum members said that it is compulsory to give testable prediction to say anything in the physics. Then I was fulfilled this demand by giving predictions. At the starting, the members, those who were shown strong oppositionto me; were not supported me, when I fulfilled demand of scientific method. (Only one member indirectly said that now you have to go the lab for quantitative predictions). (There is no necessity of supporting the truth.Truth will be truth any one support it or not. It will not change. Because, truth is changeless.) Then after in personnel conversation one another member (moderator) said that mathematics or formulating the theory is compulsory in the modern physics. (I was not rejected this. I was said that I will fulfill demand of modern physics.) At the starting I was criticized for the reason of my Prem Parvathi Principle. Members were said yours is not science. Yours is only philosophy. Even one member (expert) has written a blog article by heading "Metaphysics is not a science". Dear Members, I accept "Metaphysics is not ascience". But every one has to know that it is more than science. Because, WHEN SCIENCE STOPS TO WORK, METAPHYSICS START TO THINK. (I intended to write a funny, but reality article about it. I hope, I will intimate you, when I will write this.) Science and metaphysics are two paths, which meet to the truth. Metaphysics is not science. But, Metaphysics is KNOWING the truth. Science is SHOWING the truth. (But Mathematics is helping truth and it also spreading ignorance.) I will not say you, for considering metaphysics as science. But you have to must aware that metaphysics guides the science. Prem Parvathi principle states that "NOTHING HAS NEVER EXISTED AT ANY TIME". By GOD grace, now I am able to show this principle in formula. Prem Parvathi Principle in formula: Now science, scientific people consider the region of void of matter/energy as NOTHING. Because 'nothing' means zero or not existence of anything. They consider density as something and consider nil density as nothing. This void of matter/energy or space has existed in this universe. By calling emptiness as NOTHING, they indirectly spreading ignorance or misleading ordinary people, as NOTHING ALSO HAS EXISTED IN THIS UNIVERSE. (In their view, nothing=space,and it has existed.). 1) Now we will see it in formula. I classify whole universe existences in two types 1)Empty existence 2) Filled existence. Then, whole universe volume V= Ev + Fv. (Ev=volume/size of empty existence, Fv=volume/size of filled existence) You have already known my definition about Empty existence and Filled existence. Dear science experts, you call zero as nothing. I accept zero is nothing. But in above formula V ≠ 0, when void of matter/energy has existed at a region. According to my definitions, in emptiness Fv= 0, but till it contains some Ev size (volume/size of empty existence) For this reason, total volume V ≠ 0. Hence region of void of matter/energy is not a nothing or not a "not existence". In formula, nothing or zero is only possible when Ev=Fv=0, Then only total Volume V= 0. Prem Parvathi Principle says, it is (Ev=Fv=0) real nothing and it has not existed in any time. Because, main property of an existence is size/volume. If aforesaid any entity does not contain it, then that will be understood as nothing or not existence. Hence I request to the science related persons, that don't call the region of void of matter/energy as nothing or not existence. If you call this as nothing, then it will show your irresponsibility towards spreading true knowledge. ********************************* Now question will arise, that how we confirm that empty space has existed in this universe or what is evidence for it? For this we will see next formula, based on my first prediction. 2) Second formula is based on, my first prediction.i.e. "Resistance to any existence motion is mainly depending on another existence density, which has existed in the direction of force or net force." Formula for this is, RV1=DV2 (RV1= Resistance to motion of V1, DV2 = Density ofV2) It is perfect formula for inertia. If V1, V2 not look likes inertia then here is a condition that V2 is relatively less moving or constant as compared to the V1. It will be used to know different density of V2. In test V1 and force applied on it to be same. But its speed will be tested in different V2 of same content like h2o. That is ice, water and steam. In these tests as all three V2 have same content. But as density of V2 decreases, speed of V1 increases. Means resistance to motion of V1 will decrease. If we think reason for this, then we will know that as density decreases, in different V2's, then intermolecular space in between molecules increases. By this we will know existence of emptiness and its property of "showing nil resistance to motion of an existence". By this test we will confirm, correctness of first formula V=Ev+Fv i.e. Presence of emptiness and fullness in an entity. (Existence of empty space in matter may also know by considering the particle of solid, liquid and gas as V1. When will we see different matters with advanced instruments, then we notice that V1 will moves where less or nil density has existed. That nil density is empty space.) 3) Third formula is based on my second prediction.i.e. "Every movement is depending on displacement of another existence, which has existed in the direction of force or net force". Formula for this is, mV1=SV2 ((mV1= movement of volume of first existence, SV2=displacement of volume of another existence) This formula says, motion of V1 is directly depending on displacement of V2, existed in the direction of force/net force.Means as V1 will move V2 displace. By second formula, already we know that a volume is combination of empty existence and filled existence's volume/size. Hence as whole V2 displaces, its content empty space also displaces with it, to other region. In case, if V2 contain only Ev (empty existence size/volume) then also that displaces to other region, for the reason of nil density. Hence, space is not fixed like a container. Space and filled existence are separate existences. Space is not compulsory for survival of filled existence. Therefore matter does not occupy empty space. (It may contain space in it.) *************************************************** I have discussed expansion of space in my paper. Now from these formula, I will describe, how expansion space is happening in this universe and what is reason for this? My first formula is, Total V=Ev + Fv Now there is a formula in established science. i.e.D=M/V then V=M/D . V=M/D, is only formula for filled existence. Because,in formula, if D=0, then V =0. But in nature without density also volume/ size (space) has existed. Hence it is formula for only volume of filled existence. Now we will put this formula in (1), then Total V=Ev+M/D In this formula as D decreases total volume increases. Same this phenomena is continuously running in nature in STARS. That is matter converting into energy. OR High density existence is converting into less density existence. By this phenomena, whole volume of universe isincreasing in high rate. Hence volume increasing or space expansion is directly proportional to decrease in density of universe. (Is there any broad minded person has existed, in this forum who can give response to it? If any one will not given response, I think, I willdirectly post, may be, my last post after publishing this in journal. My future projects: Time, Origin of universe,Neutron, Reincarnation.) ***************************************** Dear members, I may faced some bad experience at the end stage of my discussion with forum experts. But discussion with the experts has given perfection to my assumptions, which I was had at the joining of this forum. In this forum, I was met experts of different countries and was known their views and current established science view by them. It was helped me a lot. For this I am grateful to internet technology, to this forum, admin of forum, experts of forum and members of this forum. Kindly receive my gratitude. Let we will proceed this world in the path of enlighten. For this I expect your cooperation in future. Once again thanks to all of you. With Pure LOVE, With True LOVE, Yours URAIN (U R ALL I am NOT)
  3. Airbrush, there is no need to read all thread. Please take time for reading only 41 and 45 post of this thread. You will get full idea of this thread and give comment about it. Thank you
  4. Dear members, I have requested in "matter occupy space?" thread that any one member (defender of established science) or expert of the forum, defend the established science by explaining 'how matter occupy space?'. But I am disappointed. Because, no one member or expert is defending the belief of "matter occupy space". When people are unable to defend a scientific understanding with scientific method, then also, how people say matter occupy space? I do not understand it. In this thread an expert (ajb) tried to defend the 'matter occupy space'. In defend, he had said that, In continuation he says, When an expert says like this, then I guess any one member will not defend the established science, more than this. My paper does not have opposite opinion to ajb's opinion. But, why you give, a heading "matter occupy space" to this explanation? In this explanation, we are not seeing the "space" the avoid of matter/energy. Here expert (defender of established science) is saying only about the matter, like how it is?. That is,matter has the volume. Here respected expert not giving any relation to the matter and space. To this explanation,why we have to give the heading, matter occupy space. Simply we have to say every matter has its own volume (In my paper, I have also said same thing.) Dear established science, you have given a heading as "matter occupy space" to this explanation. What is your intention behind this? Do you have intention that, rest world or I have to take your explanation, as space is like a container and matter occupied this space? If you have this intention behind your explanation, then say openly. Why you are hiding this? Then you have to explain, what is the space? How it is? But you are not explaining about this three dimensional space. Then also you expect that, we have to take this as matter has the volume in the container of space. It is not a defending of "matter occupy space". It is only defending of how matter is? Every one knows this and I don't need this. Hence now I am saying that, this forum members (who had cast their vote in favor of established science) and experts (defender of established science) are incapable to defend the established science. Some say, to accept my prediction, I have some numerical predictions and error analysis and it is only modern physics. Ok, I accept. I will not oppose this rule of modern physics. ( I have hope, in some time I will definitely give, what modern physics demand.) But my problem is, according to this modern physics rule, by which law and by which numerical and error analysis you say matter occupy space (3 D space). There may be no need to accept my predictions with authentically. But, in modern physics, why you accept, matter occupy space? Do you have accurate proof, evidence, or numerical prediction and error analysis about matter occupy space. If you don't have these, then in modern physics, why you accept 'matter occupy space'. You have to declare it as only hypothesis of old physics. Dear experts, I have given perfect definition about the existence. Do you not think, it will give perfect numerical prediction and error analysis. That is, I have said space as zero average density existence and matter as greater than zero average density existence. By these anyone can know 1) Space and matter are different and they know, where is space, there is no matter and where is matter, there is no space. 2) By this any one can know space, zero density existence has its own volume and matter also has its own volume. Then, how can any one say, one volume (matter) which is already existed, will require another volume (space) for its existence? Matter does not need space for its existence. Without zero denser existence also greater than zero denser existence will be existed. Matter is not dependent of anything. (It may be dependent of space for formation of different types of matter. i.e in solid empty space is less,in liquid it is more.) Therefore matter does not occupy space, other than it. I know that you don't like to say this in out load. (You may fell in a big controversy.) I have only used my part time in this work. I have not fully engaged in science field. I hope, in some time I will be able to give my full time to this work. Actually I was expected a helping nature person through science forums. I remember one thing related to this. That is, when Mr. Bose works was not published in the standard journal,then he sent his papers directly to Mr Einstein and he has focused Mr. Bose work. I was also expected a great extraordinary person through the forums. But I have not got it. Now I have intended to release these discussions and my paper to press of my area. By this I will try to find any defender of established science, who can defend established science by scientific method (with testing, experiments, not only by speaking on old beliefs) and by disproving my predictions and definition of existence. Here I again request to the defender of established science that please defend matter occupy space with scientific method (with testing, experiments, not only by speaking on old beliefs) and by disproving my predictions and by disproving my definition of existence. Definition of existence: A size or volume, which has same average density. (In a considered volume if we observe different average density, then those are different existences.) First prediction: Resistance to any motion is depending on another existence density which has existed in the direction of motion. Second prediction: An existence speed will be greater than zero, if and only, if it is capable to displace another existence, which has existed in the direction of force or net force. (Every motion is dependent on displacement of another existence, which has existed in the direction of force or net force.) Anyone defender of established science disprove these above things by scientific method and defend the matter occupies space. (May be thousand votes or countless votes come in favor of established science. But without defending established science with scientific method, those votes value will become a big zero.) Thank you.
  5. JohnStu thank you for focusing the truth. You have casted your vote in truth side in "Matter occupy space?" thread . This will help the ordinary men of rest of the world, for deciding, which is the truth. It was good, if you have given some response with that vote. Because, In that thread I had said that, I only submit my next post; if any one will given response. Therefore I am wishing you, in this thread (As per my commitment, in there I am unable to post and this thread also related to that thread. Hence I am wishing here.) Any way thank you JohnStu, for your willingness of residing in side of truth. **************** Members may be expecting my posts in the thread "Ordinary man's attempt to explain GR" But my post will not bring any change there. Because, only open minded people accept the truth. In there, I have explained, how matter not occupies space; with standard testable predictions and testable definition of existence. But this scientific method also not making any change in the view of the member. The member is, neither rejecting my statements nor accepting. And he has not given answers to my questions. Hence there is no, any use of convincing the person, who already taken a strong unchageble decision.
  6. ( Ved prakash I am giving reply openly on thread, because it will useful to all members.) Its OK and thank you. I know including you anyone has not ignored this thread. (If this thread has contained ignorable things then this thread was gone into trash can or this thread has been closed.) This thread contains some thing opposite to established science. Therefore, honorable members hesitating to say anything authentically in favor of this thread. Because scientific community is a huge community and this forum and forum experts are only a part of that huge scientific community and no one member don't like to receive a certificate of science rival. As per scientific method my idea has the predictions, which can be testable and observed. But forum members do not thinks themselves as an authorized person of huge scientific community. And they think authorized persons of community may only give a favor to new things of science with authentically. I think you haven't discussed this with your elders (Brother/sister, Father, Teacher, Friends). Discuss with them once. To understand this, you only give importance to the four things of this thread. Science mainly give importance to theexperiments (At first I was used metaphysics principle. Hence that time it was not accepted). If you do experiments or tests with these fallowing things, you definitely notice that matter does not occupy space,other than it. (Any one, who accept the "experimental result as science" they will not say matter occupy space.) Those four things are, 1) What is an existence? (How we have to consider a thing as an existence?) A) Existence is the space or volume,which contain same average density. 2) How we have to differentiate separate existences? A) Difference in average density, in a considered volume is the indication of separate existences. 3) My first prediction: "Resistance for an existence movement is mainly depending on another existence density, which has existed in the direction of force or net force". (Resistance to any movement is mainly depending on differences in between two existences densities.) 4) My second prediction: "An existence speed will be greater than zero, if and only, if it is capable to displace another existence; which has existed in the direction of force or net force." (Every movement of an existence is depending on displacement of another existence.) ************************** By testing these things only, you will know, Does matter occupies space? or not? (Those who would like to defend the "matter occupies space" they first have to disprove these four things. Then only any one can say matter occupies space.) Thank you ************************** Dear members, About movement already Great Newton had given standard laws. My predictions also related to movement and this will not violate Newton's laws. Without violating Newton laws, my prediction is different than Newton's law. For movement two things are must and should essential in this world. Those are, 1) Emptiness 2) Fullness or mass or force. Newton laws gives importanceto the force and not consider the emptiness. Therefore the motion is called as inertia, which does not require external force to that's motion. Importance of Newton law: 1) Newton laws say's which motion requires external force and which motion does not require external force. By this way it differentiate motion into a)Inertial motion and b) Non Inertial motion 2) This Newton law says that the existences will be in rest, if total net force is equal to zero. It is an indication of importance of force in Newton law. Significance of my prediction: 1) But my predictions says motion may be anything (it may be inertial or non inertial) but that must be able to displace another existence, which has existed in the direction of force or net force. This will not differentiate motion into inertial and non inertial. It gives only importance to capability of displacement of another existence in every motion. (May be moving existence itself has the capability or external force give capacity to it. But common condition for both thing motion is displacement of another existence. .) It perfectly says every motion (inertia and non inertia) of an existence is displacing another existence and without displacing another existence, an existence will not move in both condition of inertia and non inertia. 2) It says an existence will be at rest, only when it is incapable to displace another existence. Thus my prediction gives importance to the emptiness of the world. In this way Newton laws and my predictions are looks likedifferent. And these will not violet both one another. ******** Newton had said "Inertial motion" as natural phenomena. But he had not said, Why it is a natural phenomena? (Please don't understand that I am saying like I am superior than Newton.) But my prediction gives reason to the natural phenomena of inertial motion. (Inertial motion, which does not require external force for that's motion). The reason is, "In almost cases, more denser existence displaces low level denser existences" and lowest level denser existence is empty space. Because low level denser existence shows, less resistance to a motion; comparing to any more denser existence. (Empty space shows nil resistance.) Therefore "low level denser existence" does not shows high resistance to the movement of more denser existence's and simply it will displaces to another region. Therefore anything which is in continuous motion, a) That may, not require external force for that's motion. b) But that existence's motion must and should require relatively much low level denser existence in that's surroundings or in the direction of that's motion. It is the significance of emptiness in the motion. (Do any one will help me to place these things in front of all scientific community?)
  7. This is the main stream sub forum. Here only main stream physics will be discussed. "Matter occupies space " is the saying of main stream physics. In the poll majority of votes are came in the favor of main stream physics. But I am rejecting the "matter occupies space" and I am saying that "matter does not occupy space, other than it" In this forum there are many scholars, doctors (Phd), who always defend the main stream physics. I am rejecting the "matter occupies space, other than it". Hence any one expert or member who cast their vote in favor of established science or any one defender of established science, Defend established science by explaining, how matter occupy space? If you will not defend it, then from this forum a message will go to the rest world that "Matter does not occupy space, other than it". I think it is my last post on this thread, (if any one will not given response to this) and it will be (not defending the established science) an acceptance from this forum that matter does not occupy space other than it. Thank you.
  8. Recently I have explained that, how matter not occupies space, in my speculation thread. I was given this thread link in that post. But, as latest this act is considering as thread advertising. (hypervalent_iodine removed link from that thread by giving reason of "advertise") Do moderator of this forum allow me to explain here about, how matter not occupies space; with my paper figures and with my predictions? (I am asking permission before writing, because I don't like any notice and any manipulation in my postings by others .)
  9. Some thread links look like as advertising, some links (in other thread or in this thread) not looks as advertise. Any way protecting the false part of established science is not a right thing. Those who are interested to focus the truth, they will find my poll thread link by using this forum search engine (or they may found it in mainstream forum) and they will focus the truth by casting vote. By the way, ignorance will not cover the truth for permanently. It may take time, but truth will be accepted by everyone.
  10. My efforts (Actually it is not my effort. It is effort of great one.) related to removing misunderstanding from world about natural phenomena (matter not occupying space) is slowly getting the results in other science forum(s). (In another forum I am discussing in main stream physics forum and some votes were came in against of established physics.) In this forum also, it is (matter does not occupy space) accepted but members not showing interest for focusing on the truth and not showing interest to guide normal people of rest world. (Therefore it is taking lot of time to cast vote in favor of truth, in the fallowing thread. link removed) In this thread (speculation thread) already, by many ways I have explained about matter not occupying space. But as per my commitment (to a respected member), I have explained this with my paper simple experiments and by my predictions in another thread.http://www.sciencefo...r/page__st__120 (139th post). But who are watching only this thread, they were missed that. For those readers (who are watching only this thread) now I am explaining about matter not occupying space with combination of simple experiment and predictions. In below figures, it is assumed that in 'Z' region pure empty space has existed. 'A' and 'B' are solid (rocks) existed in 'E' and 'F' region. Established science says that empty space has the property of allowing itself to occupy by matter. Therefore, when we place 'A' solid in 'Z' region, defender of established science says that 'Z' region empty space has occupied 'A' solid in it. Hence they say empty space and 'A' solid both have existed in same Z region. As per their argument, if empty space has existed in same Z region, then it must and should have "lets itself to be occupied by matter property" in it. To test this, we try to put B solid in same Z region. But it has not taken the Z region place. This phenomena also will defend by defender of established science by following two statements. By above statement defender of main stream science, differentiate space into 1) Occupied space 2) Unoccupied space. In their view "occupied space" means 'A' solid existed Z region. If we accept 'A' solid region as occupied space then, How can we say, space is empty ? Because 'A' solid is not empty. Also, here we are not see space and matter as different existences. Here defender of established science is calling only one existence, with the name of "occupied space" and by name of 'A' solid. It says that space and matter are both same existence and there is no difference in between them. Secondly, when 'B' solid has not takes the place of same Z region, they defend this phenomenon as Here we have to think that,if any entity has any property, then that property must and should remain with that entity, in all conditions. When B solid not takes the place of Z region (after putting A solid in it), then also if we accept space till existed in Z region, it implies that Z region space does not contain any property. It is how scientific that considering an existence without any property? In this world, is it really possible to exist any entity without any property? (Think a bit) It is not possible. If we consider anything as an existence then it must and should contain some property and that property should remain same in all conditions with that entity. I have given perfect definition about an existence and differentiation of two existences. The size or volume, which contain same average density, is an existence. In a considered volume, if we see difference in average density, then they are separate existences. According to this, it is not possible to say, space has existed in same Z region even after putting 'A' solid in it. Because solids always have average density, greater than zero and the pure empty space has zero average density. Greater than zero average density ≠ zero average density Hence empty space (containing zero average density) will not exist in Z region after putting 'A' solid in it. My first prediction also does not allow to say, space has existed in same Z region (even after putting 'A'solid in it). My first prediction say's that "Resistance for movement of an existence is mainly depending on another existence density, which has existed in the direction of force." According to this prediction, if space has existed in Z region, then it (space) must not show any resistance for B solids movement into Z region. B solid faced a high resistance means empty space has not existed in Z region, (after putting A solid in it). Therefore only 'A' solid has existed in Z region. Existence of only A solid in Z region is indication of displacement of empty space from Z region (which was previously existed in Z region). My second prediction is based on this natural phenomena, that says "An existence speed will be greater than zero, if and only, if it is capable to displace another existence which has existed in the direction of force." Speed greater than zero means motion; 'A' solid moved into Z region means, it has capable to displace the empty space of Z region. Therefore it moved into Z region and empty space displaced to another region. {You can test this by putting 'A' solid on water of a container. When we place solid on water then by displacing the water (less denser existence), solid (more denser existence) enters into container. } It clearly says that, movement of more denser existence will displace less denser existence. Empty space has always zero average density. Therefore it is impossible to occupy it by any matter (or by more denser existence). Always less denser existence displaced by movement of high denser existence. In this universe a process is continuously running naturally. i.e. Conversion of more denser existence into less denser existence (That is matter converting into energy.). In stars we can see this process. By this process more denser existence, displacing the less denser existence to another region. It is making space of universe more wider. This is the main reason for expansion of space. {But Mr. Established science has lot of faith on his assistant. For this reason he is in illusion by thinking that dark matter and dark energy has existed in this universe and it is the reason for expansion of space. Here I sadly say one thing that assistant of science misusing the faith of his boss and he is trying to become the boss of science. He is ignoring the experimental tests and observations of reasoning. I request to Mr. Mathematics, who is the assistant of science that, "please understand your limitation and must & should remain in your limitations, please". It will help to remove ignorance from the world. ) Dear readers, primary requirement for movement of more denser existence is empty space. In this universe movement is taking place means empty space has existed in this universe and if you do experiments, then a more denser existence takes less time to displace empty space; comparing to any other denser existence. (Every movement must need empty space for this, I have given example in previous post of this thread. i.e. when we place fuel containing formula one race car with it's champion driver in hole of ground, that will not move.) This empty space has a specific size or volume and it has nil resistance property for a motion. Where matter also has it's own volume or space.Therefore when we place matter in empty space it will not occupy the empty space. It will be displaced to other region. Therefore matter does not occupy the space other than it. If you have understood this explanation then cast your vote on this thread. link removed Thank you.
  11. When I uploaded my paper on the blog, I was intended to discuss about it, in the forum. For this (as per forum rule) I have started a separate thread. Where, it is able to discuss only subject of my paper (without diverting the direction to any other side). Hence I will give response to a post by thinking that, how post's subject has relation with my paper's subject.Because, there is a chance of diverting the direction of discussion to other side, instead of my paper's subject. (Ajb was accepted my request,when I was said to him that "please don't bring the space time in this discussion, if you think space and space time are different".) Based on some simple experiments, my paper perfectly says 1) Property of the space. 2) Matter (which contain density greater than zero) not occupy the space (emptiness). 3) Reason for expansion of space On base of property of space it says about the "neutron". Based on P. P. Principle it says 1) Origin of universe (what was existed at the origin time.) In the paper I was not given predictions separately. But based on the my paper's simple experiments, now I have given predictions, which are testable. I think your post is a reaction for my statement about, mass and space are opposite and space (emptiness) will not converted into mass. If we take a look on my first prediction, "Resistance for movement", then it expresses that property of space (nil density existence) and property of matter (density greater than zero existence)are opposite to each other. Therefore I have said that mass and space are opposite to each other and space (emptiness) will not converted into mass; mass will not converted into space (emptiness). Suppose you consider an existence, which is summation of A+B Existence = A+B We know the property of A is C and we don't know the property of B. But practically we know that,in a volume as A increases C increases and as B increases C decreases. ( as A> then C> and as B> then C<) From this we can know that, when only B will exist separately; then property of B will be opposite to C. May be call that as D. By this we can say A ≠ B or A is opposite to B. (I have expected that, in mathematics this concept will definitely get a mathematical relation. If it is possible by any mathematician, then please give a mathematical relation to this concept. I think it may be possible by differentiation or integration.) Here for an existence, you may consider any matter of solid, liquid and gas. Then you have to consider A = Particle of that matter and B= Emptiness or space existed in that matter In a volume of matter, as particles 'A' increases that's property, resistance for movement 'C' will increase. (As Particle >, resistance for movement >) In a volume of matter, as emptiness 'B' increases then resistance for movement 'C' will decrease. (As emptiness >, resistance for movement <) (You can know this from my "Resistance for movement" and by "displacement of an existence for motion" prediction.) Hence, when emptiness 'B' separately existed without particle 'A'. Then it will not have any resistance for movement. Or A≠B and C ≠ D Therefore I have said mass is opposite to emptiness and emptiness will not converted into mass. In my paper I have perfectly said the property of space or emptiness ( i.e. Nil resistance property for motion). First, any one has to be prove my predictions as wrong, before any one has to say my statement are wrong. By the way, 1) Space has which property? And 2) what is space? According to you or according to your links. And you have not given response for the my question to experts that, Does matter occupies space ( or emptiness) ? Thank you
  12. Vedprakash, your exam is going on, I wish you, best of luck for that. Now I am thinking that giving response to your question will become right or wrong. Because, again it will disturb you. But, if I have not given answer, then also there will be a misunderstanding in the forum, that I have not answer, for your question. Because in this world, if any active expert have answer for a question, then he will give answer to that. If he does not have perfect answer (or if he has confusion), then he will be silent. (This thread title is "Dear experts,do you have answers for my question". They have not answered, and now it is assuming that they don't have perfect answer for my question. Experts are really, experts.There is no doubt in it. But when I was started this thread, then I was unknowingly expected an extraordinary, kind hearted, broad minded expert; who can answer my question with courage and will receive me in his group. Unfortunately I have not found a great expert. ) I am giving response only keeping in mind, other members; who are watching this thread. You can give response, when you will get free time. Your question is so nice. My perfect modified prediction says, An existence (E1) speed will be greater than zero, if and only, if it is capable to displace another existence (E2 or its content), which has existed in between E1 existence and the direction of force (or net force). In easy way it is understood as "movement of every existence occurs, mainly by displacing another low level density existence. ("mainly" word missing in your quote, if it is not added then again this will create doubt.) You are asking that, is it possible to displace (pull out) space from jar by vacuum pump? It is so easy, why you have to use vacuum pump to displace that (if really pure empty space has existed in there.). As per my paper and in reality, space or emptiness is a nil density existence. It is the least low level density existence of the world. In most of cases and always, low level denser existence has displaced by movement of a high denser existence. Here you are asking about displacement of lowest level density existence. For this simply, fill the pure vacuum existed region, with any other high denser existence. (Like water,solid, gas, or photon, which have high density than pure empty space.) Then pure empty space will not exist in that region (where previously pure vacuum was existed). I give one example for that. Experts say's that nothing (in their meaning, 'nothing' means space or vacuum) has existed in this universe (beyond earth atmosphere, cosmic region) and it is unstable. It is unstable because, it is displacing by movement of other high density existences, which are in continues motion. In this universe everything is moving that may be planet, galaxy, or energy light rays ect. These all have high density comparing to nil density space. That's why space ( or nothing, in the meaning of experts) has displaced from one region to another region and it looks to us as unstable. Second thing I am requesting to members that please, show me or make me familiar about pure denser existence of the world. Because as I know every denser existence has some vibration or that has internal movement by its particle. Vibration is a type of movement and every movement must and should need empty space in its surroundings. Because, primary requirement for movement of a denser existence is emptiness. But lot of people think force is the primary requirement for denser existence movement. I am not rejecting force importance. It is needed for a movement. But, when denser existence itself existed as a force, then next requirement for movement is emptiness. Yes, I have said space as mass less matter. But as I understand (now), similarities in between space and matter is only size or volume, which can be measurable. Other than this, these two are opposite to each other (as per my current understanding). Hence space will not converted into mass and mass will not converted into space. Thank you
  13. Anilkumar First of all, I am do not understanding that, why you are taking so long time to give response or to answer so simple question. Before answering to your question, I will remember your earlier quotes. When you were asked to me that, what will you expect from me? Then I was said,"acceptance" (if truth exist in my writing) is expecting from you. In reply you had said, For this I have given detailed reply that, which kind ofpeople are existed in this world. I was not considered you, in that group of IAURN or MBA YBN peoples. But your answers, enforcing me to think in that way. When you raised question about space curvature, you said that I am not convinced with it. Hence I raised question, in the expectation, any one may convince me. But actually you raised the question to prove this as wrong. Hence you are mentally not prepared to get convinced. Another quote For this reason you are questioning great scientist Einstein's space curvature. Now I ask same question to you that why blindly you are accepting others statements about space? Like following quote. And by this Some one said space is like this, like that. Why not, you think yourself with my reasoning and predictions. You are saying that space is fixed, and then does expansion of space is an unreal thing? Then all scientists also incorrect, who are saying space is expanding. Anilkumar, your arguments are not supporting to reasoning and they are opposite to reasoning and logic. 1) You accept space as an existence and it has a property. But again you indirectly say that space will lose its occupying property, when we place 'A' solid in 'Z' region (Your have said this, when B solid has not occupied same Z region), and you say that without any property, space will exist in the Z region. After putting 'A' solid also, if space has existed in same Z region, then what is the property of that space? 2) By above quote, you are saying that space and matter (denserexistence) are two different things. And you differentiate space as occupied space and unoccupied space. You are saying a region as occupied space,where matter also has existed. Here According to you both space and matter are existed in same occupied space. Then how matter will different than the space? (If anything you say, that must must be correct in all conditions.) How you differentiate matter and space? How we confirm matter and space are different? Suggest any experiments. Actually here you are calling only one thing with different names. Is it not saying like, space and matter are both same existence? (Think with reasoning once again) You have strong preconceived thought about space by this. You have made your mind fixed to space is like a container and all thing exist in this. You expect from nature that space must and should exist in this way. Otherwise you are not ready, to see nature as it is. Did you have read my paper without these strong preconceived opinions about space? It seems not. You are not testing my predictions and you are not taking my reasoning with open minded. You have to take my predictions and reasoning with open minded, to get convince yourself. I have defined existence. i.e. Q. What is an existence ? A.Existence is a size or volume, which has contained same average density. (size may contain nil density also.) Q. How we have to differentiate different existences? A.Difference in average density in a considered volume is an indication of different existences. In this thread many times you have, talked about rational thinking. Does your rational thinking; will accept these definitions (existence and differentiation of existences)? If your rational thinking not accepts these, then by giving any examples of this universe, prove these definitions are wrong and give your definition about existence and differentiation of existences, which is testable. According to my definition, if we will consider anything as space then that size or volume must and should contain nil average density. You are saying that space has the property "let to occupy by matter". With this, you also saying that till empty space has existed in same Z region, even after putting 'A' solid in that region. 'A' solid does not have nil average density. Then how you say, in same Z region empty space has existed. In your thinking, Does nil average density and greater than zero average density are same? (zero average density = greater than zero average density ?) (In paper, it is assumed that in Z region, empty space has existed and A and B are solid rocks.) If space has existed in same Z region and if it has property to be occupied by matter, then why it has lost its occupying property, when we tried to put the B solid in same Z region? If without any property space has existed in same Z region, then it implies empty space of Z region does not have any property. I ask you, that accepting an existence without any property,is it comes under your rational thinking? In this universe, if any existence has existed without any property, then please show me that existence. (I am again saying that if give any property to space that must apply in every condition.) As per established science (or as per you) space has the property "allow itself to be occupied by matter". But according to my paper and also in reality, space is a size or volume and it has nil resistance property for a motion and it is easily displaced. Because, it does not contain any density in it. It is empty. *If empty space has existed in same Z region (after putting A solid also), then a question will arise that, why this Z region has showed high resistance, for B solid's movement towards Z region (when we tried to put the B solid in same Z region)? Always empty space will not show any resistance for any motion. In a shorttime, it will be easily displaced by motion of other denser existence. In any region, if any movement has faced any resistance or it taken some more time to move, then pure empty space has not existed in that region. You can check this by experiments also. Normally an existence takes least time to displace empty existence than any other denser existence. My first prediction says "resistance for any existence movement is mainly depending on density of another existence, which has existed, in the direction of force ". If density of another existence is high, then an existence takes more time to displace that. If density other existence is low or nil density then an existence will take less time to displace that. Space is empty; it has nil resistance, therefore an existence take very least time to displace that. (And second prediction says "An existence speed will be greater than zero,if and only, if it is capable to displace another existence, which has existed,in the direction of force or net force".) You are saying that empty space has existed in Z region, (even after placing A solid in it). You have to think, that why empty space of Z region showed high resistance for movement of B solid. While empty space has the property of nil resistance for movement and existed in Z region (in your view) even after putting A solid in it. Anilkumar, I think you are discussing only to defend your previous argument (it is character of "I am All U R Not" peoples). You are not discussing to receive true knowledge. Therefore you are not receiving my reasoning with open mind. After giving reasoning also if you are not ready to accept that then I am helpless to convince you. I have answered flaws and questions raised by you. I hope you also answer question raised by me. One thing you have to remember that, blindly accepting is the process of accepting others people statement without any test or experiment. To test and exam my predictions are ready. You have to test these predictions. (Mainly you check, "Resistance for movement" prediction and if you give any property to space, then it must apply in every condition. In my paper 'space' property is showing nil resistance for a movement and you can apply it to any condition. Where is resistance for a movement,there is no pure space. Where is no resistance, there is pure space. Once you haveto think in this way.) If any faults you see in my prediction then please make me familiar about that and without placing preconceived thought away, you will not get convinced.
  14. Dear Michel, things are going better. After you expressing confusion about my prediction, now I have modified above 'movement' prediction in this way. By this, prediction has got more perfection. Prediction An existence (E1) speed is greater than zero, if and only, if it is capable to displace another existence (E2 or its content), which has existed in between E1 existence and the direction of force (or net force). Suppose assume force motivating E1 to move towards its "east" direction. North <-- East E1 West South Then E1 displaces another existence, which has existed in its east direction. This is common rule related all motion of this universe. It may be inertial motion or non inertial motion. Inertial motion In inertial motion, if E1 density greater than E2 density (E1 D > E2 D), then E1 capable to displaces E2. Hence E1 speed may be, E1 speed = The length of E2 existence (towards direction of force), which has displaced, in a specified time by the force related to E1 density. Non inertial motion N In non inertial motion, the net force, which changes the velocity of E1 will capable to displace E2 existence. Hence E1 speed may be, E1 speed = The length of E2 existence (towards direction of force), which has displaced, in a specified time; when the net force, applied on E1 existence. If we will do the experiments,then E1 (denser) existence will takes least time to displace nil density existence comparatively to any other denser existence. Because resistance for any entities movement is mainly depending on, another existence density. But space (size with nil density) or emptiness has not any density and it will not show any resistance for other denser existence movement. Hence denser existence takes least time to displace the empty existence. (If anything takes,relatively least time for that's motion, then it shows emptiness was existed in that region.) It indicates, 1) Space or emptiness has existed in this universe. 2) Space existed separately than denser existence. 3) It existed separately; therefore other denser existence will not require space (volume with nil density) for its survival, in this universe. Hence space is different than the matter. Matter not occupies space,other than it. (U R ALL I am NOT {URAIN} actually I am nothing in this truth showing science field, therefore your suggestion's are welcome.)
  15. First of all, I say "thank you, very much" for giving response. Because, In this forum or speculation sub forum, when honorable administrators see, some thing is going wrong then they will be united to protest against that wrong thing (which they think). But when they see, some thing is going on systemic way of scientific method, then they will not united to support or encourage or to give suggestions. Some honorable person, in some where, said that this forum critique is more important than usually publishing in other publication. When something publish in some publication, then also you will not ready to accept that directly. And you are not ready to give any critique, which is placed on this forum. Then where, persons have to go (who were placed their work on this forum)? Do they have to join any another forum? When something you consider wrong, then you think it is my duty to object this. But when you see something is going in right way then you will not think it's your duty to give some positive response. They say, science also testable and falsifiable. If you get something to test, then why are not, you testing this? and why you are hesitating to accept some of established science definition is wrong? All are sensitive, hence I think, it is not right thing, to say more than this. (I will not consider Ajb as "hit and run " person. He was the person, who had read my paper at first. Yes, he also hit, but he has traveled along with me to the some stage of laboratory. He only left me, when situation made to authentically accept the thing, which is against to the established science.) ************************************ Now I will come to the subject, which you were raised. You have not commented about my first prediction about "Resistance for movement". If you only consider main statement of that, then that prediction also will not make clear sense,. (i.e. Resistance for any movement mainly depending on differences in between two existences density.) If any person consider only this statement, then he will not clear about the natural phenomena. To make clear, with this main statement, he has to consider below three statements also. Ajb considered, third sub statement with main prediction, then only he has guessed this as inertia. (Ajb, if you keenly observed other two sub statements of resistance for movement, then you know that only inertia will not come in that prediction.) Michel, I think your problem is ' to which, we have to consider as a movement and to which, we have to consider as displacement. Because every thing is moving and same thing is at rest in other observer.' Dear Friend, Which you have quoted in your response that is the general prediction. If any one want's to specifically understand that statement, then he has to consider the next sub statements also. (I have given sub statement's for giving clear sense to readers.) Suppose take first sub statement, 1)Movement of every existence is taking place, mainly by displacing, another low level density existence. I know a observer will not see all things are moving. But as per an observer, which he consider moving, corresponding to movement of that existences, which are low level density existences, they are displacing. Suppose an observer observe, particles of liquid is moving. For displacement, here we have to see, which is low level density existence? corresponding to moving particle of liquid. My prediction says that, this low level density existence is displacing by movement of particle of liquid. I think from this explanation readers make clear sense about prediction. ( If I think it is necessary, then I will add "relative" word to the sub statements.) If any other fault you see in my prediction, kindly expose that. (Now, for second sub prediction of "movement " I add a word "partially". Second sub statement says, 2) If a denser existence is observed in some another existence, (here I modify as below) 2) If a denser existence is observed partially in some another existence, and it's speed is relatively slow (zero or near to zero) then that trying to displace another high level denser existence. And add another sub prediction as 4) By movement of an existence, displacement of another existence is only limited up-to lowest density existence. Means, movement of lowest density existence will not displace any other denser existence.) Thanking you URAIN
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.