(Thank you, for waiting. I was had a busy schedule and important writings needs some free time.)
Pincho Paxton you are more experienced person than me on the science forums. You know very well that, what is the value of “opinion” word in science & scientific method. Science only gives importance to the tests and observations, which should be correct in all condition. For this reason I was given the testable predictions and you are aware about this.
***************
Macphee,
About existence already I have said, and then also I am again giving perfect definition for this.
Existence: Existence is a size or volume, which contain same average density.
All existences are measurable independent one.
I will divide universe’s whole existences into two different types.
1) Empty existence.
2) Filled existence
1) Empty existence: A size or volume, which contain same zero average density.
2) Filled existence: A size or volume, which contain same greater than zero average density.
On the base of these definitions, we can distribute world existences in these two types.
Empty existence: We can call this existence by the words empty space, or space and vacuum.
It is zero density existence.
Filled existence: Energy, mass and all existences, which contain greater than zero density will come in this existence.
We can know almost all filled existences by our sensual organs and observation i.e by directly. But we know empty existence by only observations i.e by secondary effects or indirectly.
On this context related to topic of the thread, I am saying that,
'Filled existence' does not occupy 'Empty existence'.
(In present science language it is like,
matter does not occupy space.)
I think, now your confusions related to words are resolved.
**************************
MacPhee,
In your post, you have asked important question. But at first,
Do I know,
why you have asked this question? Please ask this to yourself and get reply and save it. After my reply to your previous question (what specific result would fallow?), again you take a glance on your reply.
I am saying this because, these type of questions only asked after the acceptance of the proposed thing. That is in the end of the discussion, as a conclusion.
After reading my response to Suresh,
you have accepted that “matter does not occupy space, other than it”. You think it is only changing the understanding. Therefore what will be a great difference happen, if we accept a natural phenomena as “every matter has its own space”, instead of “matter occupies the space”.
Therefore you have asked that, what specific results would fallow? If my ideas will be accepted by scientific community.
But you have not mentioned your authentic acceptance in your post.
(I don’t know why people hesitate to give acceptance to the truth, in a out load.)
There is no hidden thing about it. I have said about it in my paper. In another forum, I have started a separate thread in that thread also I have mentioned those things.
I have not mentioned all the things of my paper in this thread. Because,
I was intended to restrict the direction of discussion to only one subject. That is matter occupies space or not.
After giving result, there is a chance of changing the direction of the discussion by members. But I don’t like it. Please, don’t divert direction of the discussion, to result of this.
By asking topics 'end stage' question, you have indirectly accepted that “matter does not occupies space, other than it”. If I say what results will come from this acceptance by science community. Then again you will rethink that, does matter not occupies space (really)?
I also think that, this topic has come to the end stage and I have said all the things related to matter not occupying space.
*******
After acceptance of “Matter does not occupy space” by scientific community result will fallow like this.
Results:
1) Reason for expansion of space:
By understanding of “Matter occupies space”, world was considered only one volume, out of two volume of matter and space. This as, space is like a container and matter occupies volume of container.
In this world, two separate volumes of matter and space have existed. But our understanding of “Matter occupies space”, restricted us to consider only one volume and we will not consider another volume.
This makes to us to think,
Space has fixed volume and its (existed) volume will not change in any situation.
Till now world not considered emptiness as an existence. By this, world had not known that space also displaced by movement of more denser existence.
In this world denser existence has existed as a condensed state in the stars. Now we are familiar that every matter and energy also has its own separate volume, other than empty space. This condensed matter of star is converting into energy, which also has its own volume.
By this process, matter’s condensed volume is enlarging its volume in the form of energy. We know that volume of a mass is dependent on density.
(i.e. Volume is small if (same mass) mass density is higher and volume is large if (same mass) mass density is lesser.)
In stars higher density existence is converting into less density existence. Means small volume is converting into big volume. Automatically this process, becoming reason for expansion of space. (I have said this in my paper. I have hope that, after some time, by me or from some one else, quantitative prediction will come for this)
But “matter occupies space” understanding is restricting us for not thinking in this way. Because here only one volume of the existence is considering and another volume is neglecting.
2
) Neutron is empty space:
a) Discovery of neutron has taken lot of time. Because it does not have any charge. By experiments it is proved that, it has no charge. But Mathematics has given mass to it.
Scientists says that neutron influence the nuclear chain reaction. After influencing chain reaction it will decay, means it will be destroy.
Neutron existence was get accepted by scientific community, on the base of conservation law (any one may read Chadwick ‘nature’ article
http://web.mit.edu/2...es/Chadwick.pdf). But established science will ignore this law, when they say neutron will decay after chain reaction.
Mathematicians give “mass” to neutron. If it has mass, then how mass will be destroyed? Because conservation law itself says “Mass/energy neither be created nor be destroyed. It only changes its form”.
I say, which does not have charge, they will not contain mass also. In this universe, the existence without having mass and charge is only empty space.
Now we aware that empty space can be displaced from one region to another region.
By motion of empty space, it may be influenced the nuclear chain reaction. If we accepted neutron as empty space then conservation law also not violated.
B. Neutron has discovered on the base of secondary effects. It has not found directly. Before discovery of neutron by Chadwick, Rutherford also assumed a neutral particle has existed in the atom. For his assumption main reason was positive charged alpha particle entered into the nucleus ( The nucleus which already has contain positive charged proton.)
As per rule, like charges must repel, but positive charged alpha particle entered into the positive charged nucleus. Means it contain some another particle which is neutral.
Now by my
resistance of movement prediction, I say this process as,
Which have positive charge they are more denser existence.
Alpha particle entered into nucleus, it is a process of “more denser existence” (alpha) entering into nucleus of containing “more denser existence” (proton).
In my prediction, more denser existence, always opposes the more denser existence’s movement. But alpha particle (more denser existence) entered into the nucleus containing proton (more denser existence”), means some, not opposing nil denser existence has existed in the nucleus. That nil denser existence is empty space.
Because empty space has nil resistance property for motion and it will not opposes to any particle motion.
3) Fifth matter:
After acceptance of my idea by scientific community. Matter definition will be
“Matter is that which have the space or volume”.
By this definition any existence of the universe will not remain outside the matter ( Now photon and other things are outside of matter).
Empty space also will become a matter. Because it has its own size or volume and it plays measure role in forming of different state of filled existence. For example: Ice and water. Main difference in between these is, one contains empty space less and another contains more.
4) Universe is boundless:
Established science considered space is like a container of the matter. Therefore lot of people thinks that universe has boundaries. But we now aware that space is not a container. Therefore it has no any boundary.
**************
These are some specific results which will be followed (after some time) by acceptance of my ideas from scientific community.
Till I have not shared one main result (in my paper also). I think time and place should be suitable for this. I am expecting a big stage for this announcement. The stage, from which my voice will able to reach all over the world.
For all these results, main base is acceptance of “matter does not occupying space”.
I have only given these results, to answer, your question. But, I don’t like to divert the direction of discussion to the subject of these results.
I may not respond to the posts, which will contain the subject, other than matter not occupying space.
************************************************************
By this way I have placed almost all thing related to matter not occupying space in front of scientific community. Now ball is on the dais of scientific community and waiting for acceptance.
(Does any member suggest any media for focusing this knowledge to all over the world or all scientific community?)
Thank you
URAIN
This post has been edited by URAIN: 23 April 2012 - 09:36 AM
Help
Join now
Sign in
URAIN, on 19 April 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:
Promote to Article
