Matter Occupies Space ?

[freeztar]

My another prediction which directly related to the space. This prediction says that “every motion (of an existence) is mainly dependent on displacement of another existence”.

 

Before saying specific prediction, I will answer to these fallowing normally asked questions.

 

Q. Which is an existence?

 

A. The size or volume, which contain same average density, that is an existence.

(The size may contain "same nil average density" also.)

 

Q. How we differentiate two different existences?

 

A. Difference in average density in a considered volume, is an indication of two different existences.

 

 

Prediction:

 

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).

 

 

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.

 

Normally in every movement, low level denser existence (or nil density existence) has displaced by denser existence.

 

(For ex: Suppose if any one observing that a particles of liquid is moving in a direction, then it is displacing another low level density existence, which has existed in between particle and force.

 

That low level denser existence may be space.

Because it has some space but it’s density compared to particle is very less i.e nil density. And it is familiar that in water, movement of particle is high. when same water condensed, it will form solid. Then movement of particle in that solid will be less. Because space in between particle is very less.)

 

 

This is common universal rule for all type motion of this universe. It may be inertial motion or non inertial motion.

 

In inertial motion, if E1 density greater than E2 density (E1 D > E2 D), then E1 capable to displace 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.

 

 

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 as compared to any other denser existence.

 

Because resistance for any entities movement is mainly depending on, another existence density. (This is the first prediction and any may test this.)

 

But space 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 as compared to any other denser 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 for its survival, in this universe.

 

Hence space is different than the matter.

 

(Emptiness is different than same denser existence.)

 

Matter not occupies space, other than it

 

Denser existence is independent of space.

 

Hence denser existence not require space for it's existence.

 

Urain, unfortunately, terms like "denser existence" have no meaning in Science (at least how it is understood in English, by me). I *think* I understand what you are getting at, but it's hard to tell because it's written in a way that is confusing.

 

Can you try to rephrase this without using terms like "denser existence"?

 

As to the original question...I am going to vote "yes". It is silly to think otherwise...matter occupies space. At the very most basic level, space can be defined using a coordinate system for four dimensional spacetime. In a practical sense, this means that my body has height, width, and length...furthermore it exists in the fourth dimension of time, which allows me to move through space.

 

A more interesting question then, imho, is "how does time affect space"? If we look at various coordinate systems, it becomes clear that space and time are intrically entertwined. So to look at space as "an entity in and by itself", I think we miss the bigger picture of how our reality manifests itself...in space...as well as time.

[URAIN]

Urain, unfortunately, terms like "denser existence" have no meaning in Science (at least how it is understood in English, by me). I *think* I understand what you are getting at, but it's hard to tell because it's written in a way that is confusing.

 

Can you try to rephrase this without using terms like "denser existence"?

 

As to the original question...I am going to vote "yes". It is silly to think otherwise...matter occupies space. At the very most basic level, space can be defined using a coordinate system for four dimensional spacetime. In a practical sense, this means that my body has height, width, and length...furthermore it exists in the fourth dimension of time, which allows me to move through space.

 

A more interesting question then, imho, is "how does time affect space"? If we look at various coordinate systems, it becomes clear that space and time are intrically entertwined. So to look at space as "an entity in and by itself", I think we miss the bigger picture of how our reality manifests itself...in space...as well as time.

 

 

Thank you, sigurdV for casting vote on truth side. If cloud cover sun then sun will not destroy. After moving cloud far away, again sun will shine.

 

Like that truth will not destroyed by covering it by illusion. Truth will remain truth. Any one may accept it or not. But in science forum all peoples will remain in truth side. Hence I requested members for focusing the truth.

 

World is considered science related peoples as wise peoples and an ordinary man will not use his mind, as wise peoples use. Hence to guide ordinary people, wise peoples must and should reside with the truth. It will focus the truth.

 

This thread and poll was started on the 13th October 2011. But first vote in truth side now has came , on 22nd March 2012.

 

sigurdV, I heartily congratulate, you for becoming first member, who is focusing on truth and by this act you are guiding the ordinary people's of rest of the world and pushing the world into truth side.

 

Once again thank you.

 

freeztar, I welcome you. I think, you are the first staff who have given response and you have thought giving response, is the duty of responsible person.

 

(I have doubt about getting your response, in future also.)

 

Dear friend, why are you misguiding the members, who wants to stand with truth and want to guide the world.

 

You have to see, poll question once again.

 

Poll question asks "Does matter occupies space?" Else

 

Poll question do not asks as "Does matter occupies space time?"

 

You are a expert and you know space and space time are different things. Why you diverting the direction of discussion by bringing the space time in it?

 

freeztar, please try to understand the significance of this thread.

 

In this world there is a misunderstanding that, matter (mass) is dependent of space or emptiness. Rest of world thinks that without space or emptiness, fullness (mass) will not exist.

 

I would like to remove this misunderstanding from world.

 

Because in reality mass is different than emptiness. It is independent of the emptiness.Without emptiness also more denser existence (containing density greater than zero)exists. And every matter has it's own size or volume. It not need any other empty size or volume to its existence.

 

(Mass may need emptiness for forming, different type of existences.)

 

Hence matter occupies it's own space and it not occupies the space other than it.

 

You are said that you cast, your vote for 'yes'. With this, giving example of your own body ( and about yourself), you are saying that matter occupies space time.It is a wise act. (Actually it is not the topic of discussion.)

 

In this act, you want to remain in truth side and (may be) want to guide the members against the truth. (I am sorry, if I mistaken.)

 

Actually, you have to say, "I will cast my vote for 'yes' and matter occupies the space."

(Only this is the topic of poll and this discussion.)

 

Space time is not the topic of this discussion. Any one member has not talked about it in this thread

 

(From starting, Rade, cold creation all are talked only about space or emptiness. You may see it,).

 

Please don't divert the direction of the discussion. This thread only related to, Does emptiness and the fullness are independent or dependent of one on another.

 

You may start another thread related to space time the (Einstens) fourth dimension.

 

I am seeing all world existences with their densities. Hence I am calling, all existences with the name "denser existences"

 

You may have confusion, about including emptiness also in this denser existence.

 

You take a word speed or velocity. Normally what it indirectly say?

 

Normally it gives a impression to the listener, as "speed means moving".

 

But we also use it to the existences, which are in rest also. With zero speed.

 

Like this, I am using the word "denser existence" to emptiness as "containing zero density". What is wrong in it?

 

Else you may suggest any other word, which will apply to all existence and helps to see them with their densities.

 

You are silent about my predictions. You are not telling about, these are really related to natural phenomena or not.

 

Please do not bring fourth dimension in third dimension. Here discussion is only related to third dimension entities.

 

By the way, Thank you for giving response.

Edited March 24, 2012 by URAIN

[Travis Meyers]

Matter doesn't occupy space. Matter displaces space. Space is not a container. Space is the absence of matter.

[URAIN]

Matter doesn't occupy space. Matter displaces space. Space is not a container. Space is the absence of matter.

 

Thank you 'Travis Meyers' for focusing the truth and guiding the normal people of rest world, to easily identify the truth.

 

Wise people acceptance is more important for deciding, which is the truth.

 

Therefore, Dear wise members please use your voting power to focus the truth.

 

 

Dear staff, experts why you are silent? Please use your vote. Else make clear, your doubt and confusions, by asking questions; like how you are asking in other threads.

[URAIN]

Already I have explained, how matter not occupy space.

 

Now I will explain about matter not occupying space with combination of my papers simple experiment and predictions.

 

( I have discussed these simple experiments in my paper. But I have not given the predictions separately in the paper.)

 

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's 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 is not possible to put B solid in same Z region (where already A solid has existed).

 

This phenomena also will defend by defender of established science by following two statements.

 

 

“Space (Z region) is empty. When any thing we place in empty Z region, then it will be occupied space.”

 

“To place B solid in same Z region, first we have to displace the A solid from Z region.

When Z region will be unoccupied, then it will occupy B solid.”

 

 

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 and they thinks in same Z region empty space also has existed.

 

 

If we accept 'A' solid region as occupied space and empty space also has existed in same Z region then,

 

How can we say, space is empty ? Because 'A' solid is not empty.

 

Also, here we are not seeing 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

 

“To place B solid in same Z region, first we have to displace the A solid from Z region.

When Z region will be unoccupied, then it will occupy B solid.”

 

 

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.

 

Existence: The size or volume, which contain same average density, is an existence. (Empty space contain zero avarage density)

 

Differentiation of existences: 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 to movement of an existence is mainly depending on another existence density, which has existed in the direction of force or net force."

 

(Resistance to a movement is mainly depending on differences in between two existences density.)

 

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.

 

Because space is nil density existence. Hence it contain nil resistance property for motion.

 

B solid has 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."

 

(Every movement of an existence is depending on displacement of another existence.)

 

Speed greater than zero means motion; 'A' solid moved into Z region means, it is capable to displace the empty space of Z region. Therefore it moved into Z region and empty space displaced to another region.

 

Mean while 'B' solid not entered into 'Z' region. Because it is incapable to displace 'A' solid, Which has previously existed in Z region.

 

{For perfect understanding, you can test this by putting 'A' solid on water of a container. When we place solid on the water, then the solid (more denser existence) enters into the container by displacing the water (less denser existence).

 

}

 

 

It clearly says that, movement of more denser existence will displace less denser existence.

 

Empty space has always zero average density. Therefore it can be easily displaced to another region.Hence 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 .

(Matter energy space all have their own size or volume in themselves.)

 

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. You are study of both "existences" like 1,2,3.... and study of "not existence" like -1,-2,-3...... But science is only study of existence.Therefore live 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, take a example.

 

Suppose assume your car is in between a big traffic jam. Then why it is not possible to move car in any direction? Although it has contain fuel as a energy or force and a trained driver.

 

Because empty space needed for any movement and it will be displaced by movement of more denser existence.But empty space has not existed in traffic jam for movement of car in any direction.)

 

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. Space will be displaced to other region.

 

Therefore matter does not occupy the space, other than it.

 

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

 

In this way, I have explained, how matter not occupies the space.

 

In the poll majority of vote (8) were came in favor of established science, till to this date.

(These votes were came, before uploading of my paper on the blog)

 

Now I request to the members, who had cast their vote in favor of established science that, Please explain, how matter occupy space, other than it?

 

You have cast your vote in favor of established science, therefore there is a necessity of defending your vote. If you will not defend your vote, then there will be no value for your vote.

 

I accept that in case of not knowing the truth, mistake will happen by every one of us,including me also.

 

(I admire that, after knowing truth any wise person has not cast his vote in favor of established science.)

 

But I don't know what you think now. Now also if you think, what you have done that's only right, then defending the established science will become your duty.

 

Please defend the established science by explaining, how matter occupy space, other than it.

Else

 

It will be accepted that, you have cast your vote only when you were not familiar about the truth.

 

Give any confirmation, by your postings.

 

Thank you.

 

URAIN

 

(Excuse me, I am editing for grammer mistakes.)

Edited April 13, 2012 by URAIN

[Pincho Paxton]

matter displaces matter. space is the sum of displaceable matter....what lies outside that I do not know nor (I'm fairly certain) does anyone else.

 

Outside of matter is included in my theory, but I'm not posting it in a science thread, because it's alternative science.

[URAIN]

Dear members,

 

Already Great Newton had given standard laws about movement. My predictions also related to movement and this will not violate Newton’s laws. Without violating Newton laws my predictions are different than Newton’s law.

 

In this world, for movement, two things are must and should essential.

 

Those are,

1) Emptiness

2) Fullness or mass or force.

 

Newton laws gives importance to the force and not consider the emptiness. Therefore the a motion also called as inertia, which does not require external force for that.

 

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 only gives importance to capability of displacement of another existence by an existence, which is in direction of every motion.

 

(It may get capacity from another force, or by itself of more denser existence. But common condition is displacement of another existence.)

 

It perfectly says every motion (inertia and non inertia) of an existence is displacing another existence.

 

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 different. 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 great Newton.)

 

Explainer of inertial motion also explain this motion as like shocking phenomena or as like a miracle.

 

But my prediction gives reason to the natural phenomena of inertial motion (which does not require external force for that’s motion). It will minimize the surprise about the natural phenomena.

 

The reason is, “In almost cases, comparatively more denser existence displaces low level denser existences, which exists in its surroundings”. By displacing low level denser existence, more denser existence always in continuous motion.

 

For this motion, more denser existence will not require any external force. But it, must and should require low level denser existence in its surroundings or direction of motion.

 

(In this universe, 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 for more denser existence’s motion.)

 

Therefore low level denser existence will not oppose the more denser existence’s movement. Hence, which is in motion that will in a continuous motion and low level denser existence will be displaced to another region.

 

Therefore anything which is in continuous motion,

 

a) That may, not require external force for that’s motion.

 

b. But continuous moving existence must and should require relatively much low level denser existence in that existence surroundings or in the direction of that existence motion.

It is the significance of “emptiness” in the motion.

 

(Which is low level denser existence, that contain lot of emptiness in it or itself it is a empty space.)

 

( My request to the members: Members please give your response related to only “Does matter occupy space or not? It is only the theme of the thread. Try not to divert, it to another direction.)

Edited April 15, 2012 by URAIN

[suresh123]

Every thing in this universe except vaccum occupies space,from an electron to a planet everything occupies space.

[sigurdV]

Every thing in this universe except vaccum occupies space,from an electron to a planet everything occupies space.

 

Perhaps one should be somewhat careful of the meaning of words here...

 

In occupying a country one comes from elsewhere, in this sense matter did not come from elsewhere before "occupying" space.

Or did it? If matter was formed out of "pure" energy than perhaps that energy didnt exist as an object somewhere in a space?

I think the answer to the topic question may not be as obvious as it seems on first sight :)

Edited April 19, 2012 by sigurdV

[URAIN]

Every thing in this universe except vaccum occupies space,from an electron to a planet everything occupies space.

 

 

Your response is confusing here. To which you consider as space and to which you consider as vacuum.

 

You are saying vacuum not occupy space. Here what is vacuum? and what is space?

 

Here discussion is going on about, Does matter (means more denser existence) occupy space (means, dense less existence or avoid of matter/energy)?

 

What is the meaning of space in your view?

 

I do not consider difference in between space and vacuum words. I consider size or volume of avoid of matter/energy by both these words.

 

I think you are saying that every thing in this universe has it's own volume. I will not object this. For this simply we have to say every matter has its own space.

[And you have to aware that vacuum (avoid of matter/energy) also has its own volume or size.]

 

My objection is giving heading of "matter occupy space" to this understanding. It will give impression to listener that matter occupy the space other than it.

i.e. Matter occupy emptiness or empty space. (it is wrong understanding)

 

If you have a thinking that matter occupy space (avoid of matter/energy) other than it. Then explain how matter occupies, another space?

 

While matter also has its own volume, space also has its own volume and then how a volume occupies another volume?

 

When we place more denser existence in the region of relative less denser existence or dense less existence, then less denser existence/dense less existence displaces to other region.

 

I have explained this thing in this thread lot of time. But what you have understood ? I don't know.

Edited April 19, 2012 by URAIN

[Pincho Paxton]

In my opinion, matter is both space, and energy combined. So half the ingredients of matter occupy space, and this half ingredient is like a mold. The energy is like the clay that goes in the mold. As a human, you move through the mold like toothpaste squeezed through a tube, and you movement is to move energy from a full mold into an empty mold.

[Guest MacPhee]

Your response is confusing here. To which you consider as space and to which you consider as vacuum.

 

You are saying vacuum not occupy space. Here what is vacuum? and what is space?

 

Here discussion is going on about, Does matter (means more denser existence) occupy space (means, dense less existence or avoid of matter/energy)?

 

What is the meaning of space in your view?

 

I do not consider difference in between space and vacuum words. I consider size or volume of avoid of matter/energy by both these words.

 

I think you are saying that every thing in this universe has it's own volume. I will not object this. For this simply we have to say every matter has its own space.

[And you have to aware that vacuum (avoid of matter/energy) also has its own volume or size.]

 

My objection is giving heading of "matter occupy space" to this understanding. It will give impression to listener that matter occupy the space other than it.

i.e. Matter occupy emptiness or empty space. (it is wrong understanding)

 

If you have a thinking that matter occupy space (avoid of matter/energy) other than it. Then explain how matter occupies, another space?

 

While matter also has its own volume, space also has its own volume and then how a volume occupies another volume?

 

When we place more denser existence in the region of relative less denser existence or dense less existence, then less denser existence/dense less existence displaces to other region.

 

I have explained this thing in this thread lot of time. But what you have understood ? I don't know.

 

Urain, I have read through your interesting posts, but they make me confused! They haven't given me a clear understanding, of what you are really getting at. That may be my fault, because you use so many abstract words, such as "matter", "energy", "space", "time", "existence" and so on. Words like these can be argued about forever. They mean whatever people understand them to mean. And different people always have different understandings, so you can never get a final answer.

 

So disputing what these words mean is futile. It's just "Philosophy".

 

What concerns me about the ideas you are putting forward, is whether they could produce some practical results.

 

Suppose your ideas about Matter and Occupation of Space, were accepted by the Scientific community. What specific results would follow?

[URAIN]

Urain, I have read through your interesting posts, but they make me confused! They haven't given me a clear understanding, of what you are really getting at. That may be my fault

 

Say what can I do? If you ask question related to not understanding, I will try to satisfy you.

 

, because you use so many abstract words, such as "matter", "energy", "space", "time", "existence" and so on. Words like these can be argued about forever. They mean whatever people understand them to mean. And different people always have different understandings, so you can never get a final answer.

 

So disputing what these words mean is futile. It's just "Philosophy".

 

About words I will say in next post. But show me where I used the word "time" (from my side).

 

What concerns me about the ideas you are putting forward, is whether they could produce some practical results.

 

Suppose your ideas about Matter and Occupation of Space, were accepted by the Scientific community. What specific results would follow?

 

Good question.

 

In this thread it is said in different posts. But not in a separate post . I will say about it in separate post. wait.

[URAIN]

(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

Edited April 23, 2012 by URAIN

[URAIN]

Hello friends, after a long gap now I am on the forums.

 

You are know that this thread was started at last year. Now it is comming to the perfection. By GOD grace now I formulated my thoughts. Now I would like to share this with you.

 

In May,2012 I have written a blog article named "Matter does not occupy space" http://scienceforums.com/blog/444/entry-404-matter-does-not-occupy-space/. In that article I have given two conclusions.

 

1) Space is not constant or fixed like a container and It can be displaced to other region by movement of high density existence.

 

2)Space and filled existence (matter) are separate existences.

 

3)I have given, What is reason for expansion of space.

 

I prove these two conclusions and reason for expansion of space by following formulas and by algebra.

 

 

A] Space is not constant or fixed like a container:

 

 

1) V=Ev+Fv (An existence formula)

 

 

 

You already know my formula for existence. This is formula for an existence.

 

Here, V= total volume of an existence, Ev = volume of empty existence, Fv = volume of filled existence, this is also a formula for volume of whole universe.

 

 

 

2) RV1=DV2 (Evidence for space formula)

 

 

 

This is formula for my first prediction “Resistance to the movement of an existence is mainly depending on another existence density, which has existed in the direction of force or net force”.

 

 

Here, RV1= Resistance to motion of V1, DV2= Density of V2, V2 is relatively less moving or constant compared to the V1

 

It is perfect formula for inertia. It may 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 on different V2 of same content like h2o. That is ice, water and steam.

 

By test we know existence of empty space in matter. Because as density of V2 decreases speed of V1 increases. In vacuum it’s speed is even high. Hence some empty space existed in matter.

 

(Existence of empty space in matter may also know by considering V1 as the particle of solid, liquid and gas. By instruments if we know the movement of particle V1 then that will move where less or nil density V2 has existed. That nil density is empty space.)

 

 

 

3) mV1=SV2 (Displacement formula)

 

 

 

 

This is formula for my second prediction “Every movement is depending on displacement of another existence, which has existed in the direction of force or net force”.

 

Here, mV1= movement of volume of first existence, sV2=displacement of volume of another existence

 

This formula says, motion of V1 is directly depending 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 presence of empty space in matter. Hence when whole V2 displaces, its content empty space also displaces to other region. Therefore, If V2 contain only empty space that also displaces.

 

Hence space is not fixed like a container.

 

 

B] Filled existence and empty existence are separate existences:

 

Suppose assume,

 

Particle = A+B,

 

In this particle property of A is C. But we don’t know property of B.

 

But whenever A increases in the particle, C also increases and whenever B increases in the particle C decreases. (if A> then C> ; if B> then C<)

 

In the particle if only A is existed and B=0 then, particle contain only C property. Then, Particle = A=C.

 

In the particle if only B is existed and A=0 then, particle contain opposite to C property. That may be D.

Then, Particle = B=D

 

When C≠ D, then A ≠ B, means A is opposite to B. If A and B are opposite things then there is no chance of creation of A, from B. OR There is no chance of creation of B, from A.

 

As like above particle example, “existences of nature” also contain same two things. One is empty existence (Ev) another filled existence (Fv).

 

We may consider solid, liquid. Gas these all contain both Ev and Fv. If we compare these with above particle example.

 

Then Fv has property of “Resistance to motion of an existence” and Ev has “Nil resistance to motion of an existence”.

 

We can know these property by formula RV1=DV2.

 

(RV1 = resistance to motion of V1, is depending on DV2= density of another existence, which has existed in direction of force/net force or motion)

 

Where an existence volume V= Ev+Fv, like particle example, here also, as Fv increases in an existence, resistance to motion increases. As Ev increases resistance to motion decreases.

 

(if Fv> then R> ; if Ev > then R<.)

 

By testing speed of iron ball through different matter (like ice, water, steam) having same content like h2o, we know that Fv is opposite to the Ev.

 

Therefore empty space and filled existence are separate existences.

 

 

 

 

C] Reason for expansion of space:

 

 

 

 

4] V=Ev+M/D (Reason for expansion of space formula)

 

 

 

( In established science there is a formula D=M/V, then V=M/D, this is only formula for filled existence. Because if D=0, then V=0. But in nature without density aslo volume or space is existed. This V=M/D is substituted in (1) formula)

 

This is formula for reason of expansion of space.

 

In this formula as D decreases total volume V increases. Same this process is running in this world. That is conversion of matter into energy, in the stars. Hence it is the reason of expansion of space.

 

D] Underastanding the article base P.P.Principle in the formula

 

This article base is Prem Parvathi Principle. This states that

 

“Nothing has never existed in any time”.

 

 

We may know this statement by the existence formula, V=Ev+Fv

 

Nothing =0 (Nothing means 0.)

 

World call nothing if V=Ev+0 (when Fv =0). But then 'V' will not become zero. Because, it contains some Ev size.

 

According to P P Principle nothing is only possible if V = 0+0. (Means when Ev=0 and Fv=0).

 

Principle says this “nothing or 0” has never existed in any time.

 

Hence, I request to readers that, please do not call empty space as "Nothing". Because space is not nothing and it is existed.

 

But "Nothing or Not existence" has never existed in any time.

 

( I prefer the “filled existence” word, instead of matter.)

 

 

 

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

 

 

This my mathematical approach to that article. Please give your response to this.

 

(In a small facebook science group I have got good critique of my article http://www.facebook.com/groups/327040114018353/permalink/365634520158912/.)

 

Thanking you

 

URAIN

[Aethelwulf]

If matter occupies space, then it occupies a miniscule amount. If matter accurately occupies space and you try to measure this, you will never find it.

 

Think about it.

[Aethelwulf]

Another thing to question, is how dimensionless objects actually occupy space which has dimensions... a peculiar thought.