On 1/19/2025 at 7:11 AM, swansont said:

Spacetime is not a substance.

It is a form of field (of Matter). Electromagnetic field is a main representation of its properties.

On 1/18/2025 at 9:04 PM, julius2 said:

Is the universe expanding "in" to something?

Or is the universe itself perpetually pushing a "boundary" ?

It is impossible to expand into Nothing.

The space and the substance (particles) being in some ratio which can change in some range. No particles without space, and no space without particles.

Edited July 18Jul 18 by kba

1 hour ago, kba said:

It is a form of field (of Matter).

What matter is length made of? Time?

1 hour ago, kba said:

Electromagnetic field is a main representation of its properties.

The EM field isn’t a substance, either.

1 hour ago, kba said:

The space and the substance (particles) being in some ratio which can change in some range. No particles without space, and no space without particles.

Any way to test this?

Why is everyone so hung up on 'particles' these days, without any proper understanding of what they mean ?

On 7/18/2025 at 6:12 PM, swansont said:

What matter is length made of? Time?

Length is a property of matter.

On 7/18/2025 at 6:12 PM, swansont said:

The EM field isn’t a substance, either.

What do you mean under "substance"? EM field isn't a substance (as a sum of some particles). EM field is continuous (not discret) basic form of matter.

On 7/18/2025 at 6:12 PM, swansont said:

Any way to test this?

It's a fact that, no electric field without electric charges, and no magnetic field without moving electrons.

On 7/18/2025 at 7:44 PM, studiot said:

Why is everyone so hung up on 'particles' these days, without any proper understanding of what they mean ?

It's a right question. I think because theoretical physicists uses only math, and do not consider the phylosophic problems of particles. They adopt, by default, particles in the absolutely empty space (Nothing), which is impossible condition.

Edited July 22Jul 22 by kba

4 hours ago, kba said:

Length is a property of matter.

So the length of travel from earth to the moon, or some distant galaxy, is made of matter?

4 hours ago, kba said:

What do you mean under "substance"? EM field isn't a substance (as a sum of some particles). EM field is continuous (not discret) basic form of matter.

No by any definition matter I’m familiar with. What particles comprise an electric field?

4 hours ago, kba said:

It's a fact that, no electric field without electric charges, and no magnetic field without moving electrons.

Sort of true. (any moving charge gives you a magnetic field) But there is a field in regions where there are no charges.

4 hours ago, kba said:

It's a right question. I think because theoretical physicists uses only math, and do not consider the phylosophic problems of particles. They adopt, by default, particles in the absolutely empty space (Nothing), which is impossible condition.

Which means that the other stuff isn’t necessary, and possibly modifies the effect in question. But it doesn’t matter what philosophy you adopt; nature behaves the way it does regardless of that.

On 7/22/2025 at 9:09 PM, swansont said:

So the length of travel from earth to the moon, or some distant galaxy, is made of matter?

You say about dimension, which is a property of matter (both space and substance). Only the matter has properties. Length dimension is one of them. Only material things can be bent, shrinked, expanded, inflated, twisted, as the space inside the dark hole or with the whole Universe.

On 7/22/2025 at 9:09 PM, swansont said:

What particles comprise an electric field?

I already said that "EM field isn't a sum of some particles", thus no particles comprise it. The structure of EM field (and base of matter) is special - we cannot to break it to independent parts on any scale of length dimension.

On 7/22/2025 at 9:09 PM, swansont said:

But there is a field in regions where there are no charges.

Fields have not the borders out of where they absolutelly disappear. Their strength has tendency to zero but never reach such value (in other words, it reach zero on the infinity). The material space which is representation of non-polarized condition of EM field, it doesn't polarizes by itself, i.e. it doesn't generate the EM fields. Only particles do it.

On 7/22/2025 at 9:09 PM, swansont said:

But it doesn’t matter what philosophy you adopt; nature behaves the way it does regardless of that.

But how it does (should) work we cannot understand without phylosophy. In fact. Logics as a base of Phylosophy (and Math too) works same as laws of nature: we cannot to imagine something which is absolutelly impossible in our Universe, because our brain working based on laws of nature (e.g. particles' interaction).

Edited July 24Jul 24 by kba

On 7/22/2025 at 12:51 PM, kba said:

On 7/18/2025 at 3:44 PM, studiot said:

Why is everyone so hung up on 'particles' these days, without any proper understanding of what they mean ?

It's a right question. I think because theoretical physicists uses only math, and do not consider the phylosophic problems of particles. They adopt, by default, particles in the absolutely empty space (Nothing), which is impossible condition.

Thank you for your reply.

But you didn't say what you think a particle is.

So please tell us since that is crucial to your proposal.

One further question, how does your model describe shadows ?

What are they made of ?

Edited July 24Jul 24 by studiot

6 hours ago, kba said:

You say about dimension, which is a property of matter (both space and substance). Only the matter has properties. Length dimension is one of them. Only material things can be bent, shrinked, expanded, inflated, twisted, as the space inside the dark hole or with the whole Universe.

You didn’t answer my question. Just repeated yourself. Assertion is not evidence.

6 hours ago, kba said:

I already said that "EM field isn't a sum of some particles", thus no particles comprise it. The structure of EM field (and base of matter) is special - we cannot to break it to independent parts on any scale of length dimension.

You said it’s matter, but it’s secret matter? Can’t say what it’s made of? What properties does it have - angular momentum, mass, etc.?

What happens to it when the field disappears? Where does it come from when a field is created?

6 hours ago, kba said:

Fields have not the borders out of where they absolutelly disappear. Their strength has tendency to zero but never reach such value (in other words, it reach zero on the infinity). The material space which is representation of non-polarized condition of EM field, it doesn't polarizes by itself, i.e. it doesn't generate the EM fields. Only particles do it.

So fields don’t start or end on charges? Maxwell’s equations are wrong?

6 hours ago, kba said:

But how it does (should) work we cannot understand without phylosophy. In fact. Logics as a base of Phylosophy (and Math too) works same as laws of nature: we cannot to imagine something which is absolutelly impossible in our Universe, because our brain working based on laws of nature (e.g. particles' interaction).

You’re not the first person to claim this nonsense. Plenty of science can be understood without philosophy, and we can imagine impossible things. There are plenty of crackpots who think perpetual motion can be achieved, as just one example.

21 hours ago, studiot said:

But you didn't say what you think a particle is.

So please tell us since that is crucial to your proposal.

Firstly, you didn't asked it. 🙂

I consider particles (which have mass) as form of EM field. Only such concept can explain how and why particles (electron-positron pair) converts to gamma-quants and vice versa, and how it is possible, in principle. And how particles emit EM waves and EM quants.

21 hours ago, studiot said:

One further question, how does your model describe shadows ?

What are they made of ?

Shadows? ) They do not exist as material objects. And my model doesn't describes nonmaterial abstractions. 😉 Physically, you see or not see light which droped to objects and reflected by them with different values, so they look darker or lighter.

On 7/22/2025 at 9:09 PM, swansont said:

So the length of travel from earth to the moon, or some distant galaxy, is made of matter?

No it didn't. Length is a property of matter.

19 hours ago, swansont said:

What properties does it have - angular momentum, mass, etc.?

Physical propertiy of matter is inner tension.

21 hours ago, swansont said:

So fields don’t start or end on charges? Maxwell’s equations are wrong?

How you did read this?

Maxwell's equations are correct. Basically. )

21 hours ago, swansont said:

we can imagine impossible things.

Please, imagine and describe new condition of matter which isn't exist in our Universe, other than movement and keeping in rest.

Or the object without form but with other kind of its representation. It would be interesting how you will describe it, by what words. 🙂

Not an abstraction which we never mean really existing. If you can do it, I will agree that you came from other universe. 😄

22 hours ago, swansont said:

There are plenty of crackpots who think perpetual motion can be achieved, as just one example.

Our Universe is an evidence of this.

Edited July 25Jul 25 by kba

22 hours ago, swansont said:

There are plenty of crackpots who think perpetual motion can be achieved, as just one example.

As I already answered, it isn't impossible thing.

Actually, if you accept such possibility - some volume with absolutely empty space without any fields and particles as real - then perpetual motion in such volume (which equal to absolutely isolated system) is absolutely possible thing, by definition. Just drop particles into there.

Even me, who do not accept absolutelly empty space as real, consider our universe as absolutelly isolated system which is in a perpetual motion.

22 hours ago, swansont said:

we can imagine impossible things.

1 hour ago, kba said:

Please, imagine and describe new condition of matter which isn't exist in our Universe, other than movement and keeping in rest.

... and which not describable by this two conditions as its part(s).

Edited July 25Jul 25 by kba

On 7/24/2025 at 4:37 PM, swansont said:

You’re not the first person to claim this nonsense.

You’re not the first person to call this a nonsense.🙂

22 hours ago, swansont said:

Plenty of science can be understood without philosophy

I talk about Physics, namely about basic principles and matter's properties. You don't need the Phylosophy to observe the Moon. 🙂

3 hours ago, kba said:

Physical propertiy of matter is inner tension.

Inner tension is only possible if there is a structure to it, meaning it’s made if something. What’s it made of.

3 hours ago, kba said:

How you did read this?

Maxwell's equations are correct. Basically. )

And the divergence of the electric field is equal to the charge, meaning field lines begin and end on charges. You said they don’t disappear.

3 hours ago, kba said:

Please, imagine and describe new condition of matter which isn't exist in our Universe, other than movement and keeping in rest.

Now you’re moving the goalposts. You claimed “we cannot to imagine something which is absolutelly impossible in our Universe” and now you’re limiting this. Modifying it is basically an admission that your claim was bogus.

38 minutes ago, kba said:

Shadows? ) They do not exist as material objects. And my model doesn't describes nonmaterial abstractions

I never said they did so exist.

But I don't understand what yo umean by nonmaterial abstractions.

Just now, kba said:

Not an abstraction which we never mean really existing.

If you mean that abstractions, whatever they are , don't exist then I would challenge you to go and stand for half an hour in the middle of the road outside my house at noon.

The walk over to the verge and stand under one of the many trees.

Then tell me that there is no such thing as a shadow or that the non material cannot affect the material world or somesuch.

That is how I am understanding/interpreting your words.

6 hours ago, kba said:

my model

But not your thread, so this is hijacking