- Active Posts:
- 72 (0.11 per day)
- Most Active In:
- Physics and Mathematics (47 posts)
- 25-July 11
- Profile Views:
- Last Active:
- Jan 29 2013 02:57 AM
- Member Title:
- Advanced Member
- Age Unknown
- Birthday Unknown
- Not Telling
Posts I've Made
19 September 2012 - 04:36 AMDear 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.
Now I have got a science stage to share directly my idea with scientific world.
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
(Suryanarayan G Chimmanchodker SEDAM)
fallowing are attachment related to my article selection and about the conference.
notification letter.pdf (266.48K)
Number of downloads: 32
Number of downloads: 31
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.
26 July 2012 - 12:20 PMI'd say, whoever told you that matter occupies a volume are fundamentally wrong, at least within the current belief-system. There is such a thing as a classical
approach. The electron for instance can be modelled as a sphere - this is called the classical electron.
But as far as our experimental evidence points to, electrons behave as point like particles. They have no dimensions - no width or any type of volume. How do you quantify matter filling a space when they don't even encompass the usual dimensions we associate to the Cartesian coordinate system ?
I don't know, what is your intention here? I don't know, what you would like to prove here? If you were presented your argument to support "matter occupies space" idea then I may opposed to you.
You know that my view and your view are same then also you are in a mood of fight (with me).
You have to give these explantions to those people who had cast their vote in favor of "matter occupies space". You have to say these things to teacher of the every school who are teaching that matter occupies space.
Last one thing, at starting of discussion if people were accepted that matter does not occupy space, then this discussion was not continued in this way. That was stopped only in that time.
I have not discussed only on this forum. I have discussed in other forum also. And people who were came to discussion were said in favor of matter occupy space. Once see fallowing links
26 July 2012 - 10:31 AMYes, it is tricky because terms like matter,space and occupation mean different thing to different people.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Aethelwulf, I was started this thread by having doubt about established science statement "Matter occupies space". When I asked this question, people said that, this is so silly question. I have faced so much opposition and people were rediculed on me (see one example, above Ludwik quote). You have to look whole thread once.
When I had started this thread then, I was had opinion that matter has its own volume and space also has its own size or volume. Hence where ever matter moves it occupies its own volume else it will not occupy other existence like empty space volume/size.
Therefore matter does not occupy space.
But I faced difficulty to prove this. Now I have proved this (matter does not occupy space) by my testable predictions and formulas.
But in every school of world only it is teaching that matter occupies space. Because matter definition says that matter is that which has the mass and occupies space.
Hence world was misunderstood (and now also misunderstanding) that matter occupies space, and space is like a fixed container.
I would like to remove this misunderstanding of "matter occupies space" from the world.
Now you also supporting me by saying "matter does not occupy space". Thanks for supporting.
What you say about my conclusions and about my formulas.
Other thing is, till now world understood that dark matter, dark energy is the reason for expansion of space. I will not comment about this understanding.
But I have given formula, for reason for expansion of space. V=Ev+M/D, i.e. decrease in the density of universe's mass is reason for expansion of space.
(Matter or mass continously converting into energy in the stars. By this phenomena density of universe decreasing and volume of universe increasing. It is the space expansion.)
What you say about this reason?
26 July 2012 - 03:46 AMAnother thing to question, is how dimensionless objects actually occupy space which has dimensions... a peculiar thought.
Aethelwulf welcome to the discussion.
Aethelwulf actually I am not understanding that, to my which point you are responding.
From years I am arguing that matter (filled existence) does not occupy space. You may read full discussion and see what other members had said and what I have said.
Please once again particularly say (mention) that to my which point you are responding?
25 July 2012 - 02:55 PMHello 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...-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:
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....5634520158912/.)