Hypothesis on MATTER

[matterdoc]

I beg to submit an alternative physical theory, ‘Hypothesis on MATTER’ for critical comments from learned members. Given below is a list of few conclusions by the concept. At first glance, many of them may appear to be bizarre speculation. But I can assure the reader that these conclusions are derived by postulating only one type of real entity and developing the concept strictly on ‘cause and effect’ relationship from the postulated particle. Since the topics covered in the hypothesis are many, for the present, the concept uses no mathematical proofs or derivations. If the concept seems to be plausible, detailed study will be continued. If at least few members show interest, we shall discus the concept step by step. To appreciate the chain of reasoning, it is necessary to follow sequential development of the concept from the postulated matter particle. The concept, in its full form, is currently available in a book of the same name. Part of the concept that deals mainly on the phenomenon of gravitation is available in a separate book as well.

 

 

 

• Matter is the sole real entity in nature. It provides substance for positive existence to all real entities, including an all-encompassing universal medium.
• In nature, matter exists in the form of ‘quanta of matter’. Quanta of matter are the only one type of entities, postulated in this hypothesis. All other entities and properties result from combination of quanta of matter and their inherent (postulated) properties.
• Universal medium has a definite structure and properties. It fills the entire space, outside 3D matter particles. It is a real entity and substitutes for the form-less space. All its actions have definite mechanism and take place by rearranging its constituent quanta of matter.
• All actions in nature take place through and by universal medium. There are no ‘actions at a distance through empty space’. An all-encompassing universal medium, which provides an absolute reference, exists in nature. It is a real entity and is made up of matter. It is inherently under compressed state.
• Fundamentally, there is only one type of effort (commonly known as force) and it is of push nature. 'Natural forces' are different manifestations of this effort.
• Gravitation is the result of push-effort by universal medium on matter bodies, present in gaps in it. Magnitude of gravitation is proportional to the extent of universal medium, applying the effort. Extent of universal medium between two matter bodies is always less than extents of universal medium on their outer sides. Gravitational efforts on outer sides of these matter bodies are greater than gravitational efforts on their inner sides. Resultant of gravitational actions on the matter bodies tends to move them towards each other. This appears to be gravitational attraction between the matter bodies.
• Gravitation is enormously stronger than other manifestations of effort. Gravitational actions create 3D matter, under appropriate conditions, from quanta of matter available during occasional local break-down of universal medium. Gravitation is the basis for all natural forces.
• Gravitational attraction is, relatively, a minor byproduct of dynamic gravitation. Currently, it is the only known property of gravitation. Static nature of gravitation is more important and fundamental.
• Work is a real entity and it is nothing but the magnitude of distortions (displacements of quanta of matter) in universal medium about a matter body. Action of an effort is transfer of work from one region of universal medium to another region. Force, power, momentum, mass, energy, etc. are mathematical relations (functional entities) related to work.
• Inertia is a property of universal medium. All efforts are recognized by inertial motions/deformations of matter bodies. During transfer of distortions in universal medium, 3D matter particles in the region are carried along with the distortions. This creates inertial motion of a body.
• Photons are the basic 3D matter particles. A photon has a disc-shaped matter core with associated distortions in universal medium about the core body. It moves at constant linear speed through universal medium and spin (about one of its diameters) at an angular speed proportional to its matter content. Associated distortions of a photon, in surrounding universal medium in any plane, has many similarities with electromagnetic waves.
• Matter core endows a photon with its corpuscular nature and associated distortions in universal medium confer electromagnetic wave-nature on a photon. Thus, depending upon the query, a photon has dual nature of being a corpuscle and an electromagnetic wave at the same time.
• Universal medium moves the photons (radiates light) at the highest possible linear speed. This makes the linear speed of light a critical constant and higher limit of linear speed in nature. An attempt to vary linear speed of a photon changes its frequency rather than its linear speed.
• Due to their motions, photons continuously lose their matter content and thereby reduce their frequencies. This leads to red-shift of photons’ frequency, in proportion to distance (or duration) traveled by them. Application of ‘Doppler effect’ on light and sound are quite different.
• Corpuscular nature of light (photons) can explain all phenomena of light. A photon, being a matter body, is affected by gravitational attraction. Due to its matter core, a photon has its mass and associated inertia. However, its linear speed cannot be affected by an external effort.
• Gravitation is ineffective on flat surfaces (straight perimeters) of 3D matter particles. A photon, being disc-shaped is affected by gravitation only on its curved circumference. Gravitational attraction between photons develops only when their disc-planes coincide. Gravitational attraction between two macro bodies is the sum of gravitational attractions between their constituent photons, whose disc-planes coincide at any instant. Numbers of photons, subscribing to gravitational attraction between two macro bodies, at any instant, are extremely few. This is the reason why, gravitational attraction appears to a feeble effort.
• A body gains energy and matter during cooling and loses them on heating. Heat is a process of losing energy rather than a form of energy. A macro body has highest matter and energy contents, when it is coolest and in free space.
• Under suitable conditions, high matter content-photons form all other superior 3D matter particles, which in turn, form macro bodies.
• Two complimentary photons, under suitable conditions, form a ‘biton’. A biton is a binary system of two photons, moving in common circular path and spinning about a common axis. It has a primary electric field about it.
• Two bitons, under suitable conditions, form a ‘tetron’. Bitons of a tetron have a common centre and are placed in perpendicular planes.
• Three bitons, under suitable conditions, form a ‘hexton’ (either an ‘electron’ or a ‘positron’). Bitons of a hexton have a common centre and are placed in three co-ordinate planes, perpendicular to each other.
• Spherical shell, formed by tetrons is a ‘neutron’. It is a critically stable, electrically neutral fundamental matter body.
• A fundamental matter particle with a spherical shell formed, under suitable conditions, by tetrons about a positron is a ‘proton’. Protons are mainly formed during pair-production, from tetron layers in free space.
• A fundamental matter particle with two spherical shells by tetrons, formed under suitable conditions, about a positron, is a ‘deuteron’.
• 50% of basic and fundamental matter particles created are anti-particles to the other 50% of basic and fundamental matter particles. Universal medium protects them from annihilating each other.
• Deuterons are major components of nuclei. Protons are rarely used in nuclei of superior atoms. A deuteron is currently counted as one proton + one neutron. Tetron shells of deuterons in contact (when they are parts of a nucleus), mechanically prevent their constituent positrons from coming in contact with each other, despite strong attraction between them.
• A positron has North magnetic poles at both its ends and has no well defined South magnetic pole. It has an electric field around its equator. It has attractive nuclear field. A positron attracts all other 3D matter particles.
• An electron has South magnetic poles at both its ends and has no well defined North magnetic pole. It has an electric field around its equator. It has repulsive nuclear field. An electron repels all other 3D matter particles.
• Nature of distortions in universal medium differentiates between various fields. Linear distortions represent magnetic field. Curved (circular) distortions represent electric field. Radial distortions (outward for repulsive and inward for attractive) represent nuclear field. Radially compressed distortions represent gravitational field. Traveling distortions associated with matter particles represent inertial field. Traveling distortions not associated with matter particles and cyclically varying in magnitude represent electromagnetic field, Permanent distortions, supporting atoms in opposite plates of a capacitor, represent electrostatic field, etc.
• An electromagnetic wave transmits magnetic nature of distortions in universal medium; electric nature of distortions is produced locally at the receiving body.
• Electric charges are relative references of an electric field. They are synonymous with magnetic poles of a magnet. Every electric field has both positive and negative electric charges.
• Mechanical stability of spinning nucleus is the sole criteria for formation of nucleus of an atom from available fundamental particles. Shape of a nucleus of an atom (in larger atoms) is tubular, with different girth at different sections.
• First electron, approaching a nucleus, causes spin motion of a nucleus. Electrons in a stable atom, orbit under central force provided only by gravitational attraction.
• Atoms of different elements have unique mechanical structure. Their properties depend on nature of distortions in surrounding universal medium.
• Integrity of a stable atom is very strong. No part of an atom may be removed from it unless excessive efforts are applied. No matter particles may be added to a stable atom under any circumstances. Uneven spin motion of mechanically imbalanced nucleus of an atom may cause radiation. Nuclei of very large atoms, being very long, are vulnerable to break the atom into two or more daughter atoms.
• There are no translational motions of fundamental particles during an electric current. Electrons or holes do not move along conductors. Electric current is extensions of electric field along a conductor. Electric fields are produced by atoms in place.
• Electric potential of an atom is the magnitude of deflection of its axis from stable direction with respect to axes of neighboring atoms. Electric potential spreads in both directions from induction/generation area. Single atoms cannot gain electric potential.
• Electric generation and electric induction are distinctly separate phenomena.
• Inertial action produced by interaction between two electric fields depends also on the distance between them. Attraction / repulsion between them reverse at certain distance between them. At greater distance, electric fields behave like magnetic fields, whose axes are 90° apart.
• Lightening is the result of breakdown of universal medium about the atmosphere rather than flow of electrons through atmosphere. There is no flow of electrons towards earth during thunderstorms.
• No planet can orbit around a moving central body, in closed geometrical path. Apparent planetary orbit around a central body may be used only to determine their relative positions. Wavy shape of orbital path can explain away mysteries of planetary motions.
• External effort on a linearly moving spinning body causes tides. Tides are mere changes in the shape of the body. There is no translational motion of ocean water during terrestrial tides. There is no work or energy involved with tides. Deflections of tides from local meridian are caused by curvature of central body’s path and directions of distortions in universal medium about the planet.
• Part of central force on a planet causes its spin motion. Every spinning planet accelerates in its spin motion. This ensures that no planetary system is perpetual. Slowing of terrestrial spin speed is a myth. Variation in the length of solar day is due to insufficient compensation.
• All planets about a central body come from outside the planetary system. Imaginary (very small) aperture through which planets enter their orbital path is situated in the equatorial plane of central body and faces to the rear of its path. Distance of the aperture from the central body depends on the parameters of planetary body.
• There are no 'singularities', ‘big-bang’ or 'big-crunch'. Matter cannot be compressed to less than minimum permissible size, in any spatial dimension. Under excessive compression, 3D matter bodies revert to fundamental particles or their constituent photons and radiate away. Interference with radiation of photons will revert their constituent quanta of matter into universal medium.
• Extent of universe is limited by ability of observer to gather information. On a larger scale, the universe is of steady state. Constant recycling of matter in different parts, maintains entropy of universe within limits.
• Electromagnetic interaction between their halos keeps stable galaxies away from each other by compensating gravitational attraction between them. Stable galaxies have no translational motions.
• Very large macro bodies radiate energy and matter (photons) by gravitational collapse alone. No need for nuclear fusion on stars for radiation from them.
• Terrestrial magnetism is formed by secondary-electric fields of free-floating atoms in planet's fluid surface.
• And many more….

[Mr Skeptic]

Its rather hard to tell which of these are your postulates and which are supposed to be deductions from your postulates. To me it looks like they're all postulates, which doesn't seem very useful, even without considering accuracy or lack of predictive value. The deductions should at least say which postulates they're derived from, but I don't really see how they could be derived from any of your list. And of course there's the vagueness due to lack of numbers. You have an awful lot of work if you want to turn this into something potentially useful.

[swansont]

What would be the next step is to devise a way to test for these items to be confirmed or falsified. Each and every one.

 

However, many of these are demonstrably false (nuclei comprised of deuterons — hydrogen would be surprised to find this out — and a universal reference frame, to name two). Perhaps you could read a few physics texts to see what we know and why. If your hypothesis requires all of these be true (i.e. they depend on each other) than the whole shebang is false.

[md65536]

I beg to submit an alternative physical theory, 'Hypothesis on MATTER' for critical comments from learned members. Given below is a list of few conclusions by the concept. At first glance, many of them may appear to be bizarre speculation. But I can assure the reader that these conclusions are derived by postulating only one type of real entity and developing the concept strictly on 'cause and effect' relationship from the postulated particle. Since the topics covered in the hypothesis are many, for the present, the concept uses no mathematical proofs or derivations. If the concept seems to be plausible, detailed study will be continued. If at least few members show interest, we shall discus the concept step by step.

As a fellow quack I have some advice:

 

1. People will tend not to be as interested in your ideas as you are. I've assumed that people will "get" the idea I'm trying to convey, and that they'll share my gut feeling that it's something interesting and important. For some weird reason, that just doesn't seem to happen. Perhaps if there was a compelling reason or evidence that encourages people to think about it, then... I dunno. Personally I haven't got anyone to work on my theories... I'll let you know if I do!

 

2. The math is kind of important. You can figure out an entire theory without it, and it may make sense, but if the math doesn't work then the theory is probably wrong. What I've found is that a good theory will suggest what the math should be, and then the math will either work or it won't, or it will work unexpectedly, which in turn will tell you new things about the idea. It turns into a cycle, of ideas leading to math and math leading to ideas. If the math works, it can explain the idea much more clearly than without it. If the math doesn't work but the idea is good, the math might suggest how to fix it. The same goes for experimentation.

[lemur]

First you say there is no such thing as force at a distance. Then you say all forces are push forces. Is this because all forces are due to quanta being emitted and received? If so, I don't get how gravity can be a push-force transmitted by particles without gravity dissipating as it passes through layers of blockage, such as the many stories of a sky scraper. If gravity was the result of particles pushing down from above, each successive level of a sky scraper from the top down would experience less gravitation due to some of the gravity getting used up by the matter above it. Since gravity doesn't decrease when entering the lobby of such a tall building, I have to conclude that gravity cannot be a push force coming down from above.

[losfomot]

First you say there is no such thing as force at a distance. Then you say all forces are push forces. Is this because all forces are due to quanta being emitted and received? If so, I don't get how gravity can be a push-force transmitted by particles without gravity dissipating as it passes through layers of blockage, such as the many stories of a sky scraper. If gravity was the result of particles pushing down from above, each successive level of a sky scraper from the top down would experience less gravitation due to some of the gravity getting used up by the matter above it. Since gravity doesn't decrease when entering the lobby of such a tall building, I have to conclude that gravity cannot be a push force coming down from above.

 

Are you sure about that?

 

 

Actually, it could be pictured in such a way.

 

The many layers of a skyscraper do dissipate gravity... but not enough that you would notice standing on a regular scale. On the other side of you, however, is the mass of the entire Earth... plenty enough mass to 'dissipate gravity' by a noticeable amount. You are 'pushed' from all sides, but less so from the direction of the Earth, which is why you are stuck to it.

[lemur]

Are you sure about that?

 

 

Actually, it could be pictured in such a way.

 

The many layers of a skyscraper do dissipate gravity... but not enough that you would notice standing on a regular scale. On the other side of you, however, is the mass of the entire Earth... plenty enough mass to 'dissipate gravity' by a noticeable amount. You are 'pushed' from all sides, but less so from the direction of the Earth, which is why you are stuck to it.

 

Why then would gravity be less in orbit than on the surface of the planet then? I suppose because gravitons are circling the planet and pushing you away from the Earth just as others are pushing you toward it? Then what would cause you to orbit? Wouldn't gravitons be pushing you from all lateral directions equally as well?

[losfomot]

Why then would gravity be less in orbit than on the surface of the planet then? I suppose because gravitons are circling the planet and pushing you away from the Earth just as others are pushing you toward it?

 

No, if you entertain the idea that the push is coming from the eternal reaches of space, then anything massive will be absorbing some of that push. When you are standing on the Earth, the Earth is blocking almost 180 degrees of space. When you move away from Earth (into orbit, let's say), it is blocking much less. If you moved as far as the moon is, then you are being pushed from almost every angle equally... you are still pushed toward the Earth, but the Earth is only blocking a small section of space from your new point of view, so you are not pushed toward it as strongly.

 

Then what would cause you to orbit?

 

The fact that you have motion tangent to the massive object you are being pushed toward.

 

Wouldn't gravitons be pushing you from all lateral directions equally as well?

 

Yes, except in the direction of a massive object that is absorbing some of those 'gravitons'

 

I don't really want to get into trouble for hijacking this thread. I am not saying this is how it is. And I have no idea if this is the phenomenon that matterdoc is referring to in the op. And I most definitely see things wrong with his 'hypothesis', not that I really understand what it is he is hypothesizing.

 

"There is no flow of electrons towards earth during thunderstorms." ????

[matterdoc]

Its rather hard to tell which of these are your postulates and which are supposed to be deductions from your postulates. To me it looks like they're all postulates, which doesn't seem very useful, even without considering accuracy or lack of predictive value. The deductions should at least say which postulates they're derived from, but I don't really see how they could be derived from any of your list. And of course there's the vagueness due to lack of numbers. You have an awful lot of work if you want to turn this into something potentially useful.

 

Dear Mr.Skeptic,

 

As is given in my first post, only one type of basic matter particle is postulated in this concept. All other real and functional entities are deduced from actions of these postulated particles. Characteristic properties of postulated particles are so chosen that actions of these particles can logically explain all physical phenomena in nature. List of deductions is given only to emphasize few of wide array of phenomena, which can be explained by this concept. Perhaps, the outline of the concept and brief explanations on various phenomena are already completed and published in the form of a book.

 

 

 

As a fellow quack I have some advice:

 

1. People will tend not to be as interested in your ideas as you are. I've assumed that people will "get" the idea I'm trying to convey, and that they'll share my gut feeling that it's something interesting and important. For some weird reason, that just doesn't seem to happen. Perhaps if there was a compelling reason or evidence that encourages people to think about it, then... I dunno. Personally I haven't got anyone to work on my theories... I'll let you know if I do!

 

2. The math is kind of important. You can figure out an entire theory without it, and it may make sense, but if the math doesn't work then the theory is probably wrong. What I've found is that a good theory will suggest what the math should be, and then the math will either work or it won't, or it will work unexpectedly, which in turn will tell you new things about the idea. It turns into a cycle, of ideas leading to math and math leading to ideas. If the math works, it can explain the idea much more clearly than without it. If the math doesn't work but the idea is good, the math might suggest how to fix it. The same goes for experimentation.

Dear md65536

 

Thank you very much for the advice. From my past experiences, I am sure you are absolutely right.

 

I realize the importance of mathematics. However, even after presenting a mathematical proof, certain conclusions are scoffed off because the conclusion is against main stream physics and the reader is not interested to understand the logic behind the concept, presented. For example; this concept shows that the magnitude of gravitational attraction between earth and moon (along the straight line joining their centers) is 2.3 times more than the magnitude of gravitational attraction between earth and sun (along the straight line joining their centers). This is the same relation between magnitudes of lunar and solar tides on earth. Reason for rejection is that this concept uses wavy shape of planetary orbital path instead of elliptical orbital path as given by Kepler's laws. While simple mechanics suggests that no free body can orbit around a moving central body in any closed geometrical path.

 

 

 

First you say there is no such thing as force at a distance. Then you say all forces are push forces. Is this because all forces are due to quanta being emitted and received? If so, I don't get how gravity can be a push-force transmitted by particles without gravity dissipating as it passes through layers of blockage, such as the many stories of a sky scraper. If gravity was the result of particles pushing down from above, each successive level of a sky scraper from the top down would experience less gravitation due to some of the gravity getting used up by the matter above it. Since gravity doesn't decrease when entering the lobby of such a tall building, I have to conclude that gravity cannot be a push force coming down from above.

 

Dear lemur,

 

No, Sir. I said 'There is no action at a distance through empty space'. Not force! Then I said "Fundamentally, there is only one type of effort (commonly known as force) and it is of push nature. 'Natural forces' are different manifestations of this effort." This means an action is accomplished by universal medium applying an effort on matter bodies with which the universal medium is in direct contact.

 

I expressed quite different opinions on gravitation from what you are suggesting. Kindly note that 'gravitation' and 'gravitational attraction' are different phenomena. No imaginary particles (like gravitons) are necessary for gravitation.

 

Edited October 17, 2010 by matterdoc

[Mr Skeptic]

Dear Mr.Skeptic,

 

As is given in my first post, only one type of basic matter particle is postulated in this concept. All other real and functional entities are deduced from actions of these postulated particles. Characteristic properties of postulated particles are so chosen that actions of these particles can logically explain all physical phenomena in nature. List of deductions is given only to emphasize few of wide array of phenomena, which can be explained by this concept. Perhaps, the outline of the concept and brief explanations on various phenomena are already completed and published in the form of a book.

 

Well, they all look like postulates to me. Maybe you should show how to deduce a few of them from your main postulate. For example, explain how you deduced "Fundamentally, there is only one type of effort (commonly known as force) and it is of push nature. 'Natural forces' are different manifestations of this effort." from your postulate.

[mississippichem]

A body gains energy and matter during cooling and loses them on heating. Heat is a process of losing energy rather than a form of energy. A macro body has highest matter and energy contents, when it is coolest and in free space.

 

Not a fan of conservation of mass? If bodies gained energy as they cooled, then why do solid substances require energy input i.e. heating, to break lattice interactions and melt?

 

Under suitable conditions, high matter content-photons form all other superior 3D matter particles, which in turn, form macro bodies.

 

How do you reconcile this with the concept of "conservation of baryon number" that is well established?

 

Work is a real entity and it is nothing but the magnitude of distortions (displacements of quanta of matter) in universal medium about a matter body. Action of an effort is transfer of work from one region of universal medium to another region. Force, power, momentum, mass, energy, etc. are mathematical relations (functional entities) related to work.

 

No, work is a way we've chosen to quantify force expressed over a certain change in position:

 

[math]W_C = \int_{C} \bold{F} \cdot \mathrm{d}\bold{s}[/math]

 

However, many of these are demonstrably false (nuclei comprised of deuterons — hydrogen would be surprised to find this out

 

Yeah, I think many of the odd numbered isotopes would be heart broken. poor U-235; guy just can't catch a break.

[matterdoc]

Well, they all look like postulates to me. Maybe you should show how to deduce a few of them from your main postulate. For example, explain how you deduced "Fundamentally, there is only one type of effort (commonly known as force) and it is of push nature. 'Natural forces' are different manifestations of this effort." from your postulate.

Dear Mr.Skeptic,

 

It is a very tall order Sir. It took about 200 pages in my book to explain creation and mechanism of a universal medium and further 100 pages to differentiate various types of ‘natural forces’ and mechanisms of their actions. In few more pages, logic of single type of common effort is concluded. I am sure you will pardon my inability to explain all details on efforts / forces and their unity in a short post.

 

However, I will try to briefly outline the logic behind the reasoning, in few sentences.

 

Matter is inert; it has no ability to act or move on its own. Hence, there is an external agency (universal medium) that may displace 3D matter bodies and generally causes all actions in nature. Universal medium is a real entity, structured by basic matter particles. It is in direct contact with all basic 3D matter particles. It is reasonably homogeneous and self-stabilizing. All its properties are derived from inherent properties of basic matter particles (only one type of postulated entity in this concept). Inertia is a property of universal medium due to its latticework structure.

 

All actions, in 3D spatial system, are realized by motion or deformation of 3D matter bodies. (Deformation is displacements of various parts of a 3D macro body, in relation to each other). Inertia is a property associated with the motion of a macro body. Hence, any action that causes a change in the state of motion of a macro body is an inertial action. Various phenomena (which apply efforts on macro bodies) and their associated ‘natural forces’ may produce inertial action on a macro body. Mechanisms and actions of inertial actions are identical in all cases.

 

Inertial actions produce (additional) work in association with a macro body. Variation in the magnitude of (additional) work, associated with a macro body, changes its state of motion. Force is the mathematical relation between inertial resistance (mass) associated with a matter body and the rate of change in its state of motion (acceleration). A mathematical relation (force) can not change its nature according to the phenomenon that causes it. Hence classifying ‘force’ into various categories is arbitrary.

 

Whichever phenomenon (gravitational, electromagnetic, nuclear, mechanical, frictional, etc) is producing the inertial effort/action on a macro body, its mechanism of action, medium of action and observable result are identical in all cases. Hence, all efforts are identical and basically there is only one type of effort (or force associated with it). It is the inertial effort. Inertial effort could be produced by various phenomena. Detailed mechanisms, with respect to each of various phenomena, are explained in the book ‘Hypothesis on MATTER’.

 

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

You need to address criticisms of your thesis, too, rather than merely restating it.

[Mr Skeptic]

(This is where I loose interest, but I will reply once more before quitting)

 

Dear Mr.Skeptic,

 

It is a very tall order Sir. It took about 200 pages in my book to explain creation and mechanism of a universal medium and further 100 pages to differentiate various types of 'natural forces' and mechanisms of their actions. In few more pages, logic of single type of common effort is concluded. I am sure you will pardon my inability to explain all details on efforts / forces and their unity in a short post.

 

However, I will try to briefly outline the logic behind the reasoning, in few sentences.

 

Perfectly understandable, but if people can't see how something is deduced they have to treat it as a separate premise.

 

Matter is inert; it has no ability to act or move on its own. Hence, there is an external agency (universal medium) that may displace 3D matter bodies and generally causes all actions in nature. Universal medium is a real entity, structured by basic matter particles. It is in direct contact with all basic 3D matter particles. It is reasonably homogeneous and self-stabilizing. All its properties are derived from inherent properties of basic matter particles (only one type of postulated entity in this concept). Inertia is a property of universal medium due to its latticework structure.

 

It looks like this is yet another premise. Standard physics explains the motion of matter without some universal medium, and also bringing in a universal medium could cause your theory to be in conflict with the Michelson-Morley experiment.

 

All actions, in 3D spatial system, are realized by motion or deformation of 3D matter bodies. (Deformation is displacements of various parts of a 3D macro body, in relation to each other). Inertia is a property associated with the motion of a macro body. Hence, any action that causes a change in the state of motion of a macro body is an inertial action. Various phenomena (which apply efforts on macro bodies) and their associated 'natural forces' may produce inertial action on a macro body. Mechanisms and actions of inertial actions are identical in all cases.

 

Usually when people say "inertial" they mean the opposite of what you do; that there is no change in motion. And inertia as the tendency for a body's motion to remain unchanged. You can use your own meanings for words if you define them, but don't be surprised if people get confused or upset about it.

 

Inertial actions produce (additional) work in association with a macro body. Variation in the magnitude of (additional) work, associated with a macro body, changes its state of motion.

 

Not strictly true, for example when dealing with potential energy.

 

Force is the mathematical relation between inertial resistance (mass) associated with a matter body and the rate of change in its state of motion (acceleration). A mathematical relation (force) can not change its nature according to the phenomenon that causes it. Hence classifying 'force' into various categories is arbitrary.

 

Whichever phenomenon (gravitational, electromagnetic, nuclear, mechanical, frictional, etc) is producing the inertial effort/action on a macro body, its mechanism of action, medium of action and observable result are identical in all cases. Hence, all efforts are identical and basically there is only one type of effort (or force associated with it). It is the inertial effort. Inertial effort could be produced by various phenomena. Detailed mechanisms, with respect to each of various phenomena, are explained in the book 'Hypothesis on MATTER'.

 

OK. However, you seem to have missed the part about the forces being "push" forces.

[matterdoc]

Dear mississippichem,

 

I began my first post by stating this is an alternative concept. You should not expect every one of my conclusions to confirm with your belief or present theories. If it was so, I would not qualify this concept as an alternative and place it in the section of ‘Speculations’. You are welcome to analyze and critically assess the concept and its conclusions. I may be right or I may be wrong in my deductions. You will be right to point out defects in my reasoning and deductions. It is not good criticism to ridicule without knowing even the basic outline of a new concept.

 

If you are interested to know more about the new concept, its reasoning and logic of its conclusions; kindly address one point at a time. As far as possible, I will try to explain briefly. Then you may counter-argue to prove me wrong or to suggest corrections. I will prefer if you do not compare my conclusions with present beliefs till you have an overall idea of the concept. As far as I think, I have logical reasons for all the conclusions, given in my first post.

 

All ‘well established beliefs’ need not be logical or true. An example: if asked ‘What is the shape of earth’s orbital path? Most people would answer ‘elliptical, around the Sun’. It is a well established belief, even among few astronomers. The reason often given, for such belief, is that ‘Kepler told so and Newton proved so’. At the same time, basic mechanics teaches us that no free body can orbit around another moving body in any closed geometrical path and an ellipse is a closed geometrical path.

 

 

[swansont]

I began my first post by stating this is an alternative concept. You should not expect every one of my conclusions to confirm with your belief or present theories. If it was so, I would not qualify this concept as an alternative and place it in the section of ‘Speculations’.

 

!

Moderator Note

You don't get to hide false statements behind the banner of "speculation." To the extent that present theories have evidence to support them, we should, and do, expect that speculation will agree with observation. We also expect that when instances where your hypothesis disagrees with observation, that you will address those objections

 

A body gains energy and matter during cooling and loses them on heating. Heat is a process of losing energy rather than a form of energy. A macro body has highest matter and energy contents, when it is coolest and in free space.

 

It has been observed that nuclei in excited states have more mass than ground state nuclei.

 

Very large macro bodies radiate energy and matter (photons) by gravitational collapse alone. No need for nuclear fusion on stars for radiation from them.

 

It should be trivial to calculate the amount of gravitational potential energy of the sun, and compare that to the amount that it radiates over a period of time. How long would the sun shine under these conditions?

[mississippichem]

If you are interested to know more about the new concept, its reasoning and logic of its conclusions; kindly address one point at a time. As far as possible, I will try to explain briefly. Then you may counter-argue to prove me wrong or to suggest corrections.

 

That's fair enough. Please pick one of my above criticisms and address that one. If I were you, I would address the one about the relationship between energy, mass, and cooling; as swanont also commented on that part.

 

It is not good criticism to ridicule without knowing even the basic outline of a new concept.

 

Don't interpret my criticism as an attempt at ridicule. Ridicule would be attacking your character instead of your hypothesis. My criticisms stem from a few inconsistencies that just "jumped out" at me as I was looking over your original post. For your hypothesis to be accepted, it must be concistent with existing theories or provide a sufficient body of evidence/predictions to alter or overturn currently accepted theories. No need to be defensive, I don't know you personally, and any criticism I have is only "in the spirit of the game" so to speak, of the science forum. I really just enjoy debate and discussion for the sake of debate and discussion; there is no competition here.

[matterdoc]

What would be the next step is to devise a way to test for these items to be confirmed or falsified. Each and every one.

 

However, many of these are demonstrably false (nuclei comprised of deuterons — hydrogen would be surprised to find this out — and a universal reference frame, to name two). Perhaps you could read a few physics texts to see what we know and why. If your hypothesis requires all of these be true (i.e. they depend on each other) than the whole shebang is false.

 

Dear swansont,

 

As to falsification of my concept, let me quote from another of my posts.

 

“Presently, scientists hold that the universe/world consists of distinctly different objects of diverse characteristic properties and then describe actions on them and interactions between them. Multiplicity of objects/particles enables possible falsification of any concept or theory. This property seems to be accepted as an essential prerequisite of all scientific theories. Nevertheless, note that this prerequisite is required only for those concepts/theories, which envisage more than one type of fundamental particles/entities.

Therefore, if there is only one type of real fundamental particles/entities in nature, there is very little chance to falsify and relatively easier to verify a concept, based on them. This fact alone should not be a reason to make a concept, non-scientific. At the same time, if this concept (based on only one type of real matter particles) can logically explain all physical phenomena, it will be good physics.

Regrettably, real matter particles, envisaged in my concept, are not physically observable by our present standards. This is not due to any of their deficiency, but because our three-dimensional-world-standards do not always suite them. They build entire universe as a single structure (no empty space) that provides for the existence and apparent interactions between superior bodies of diverse characteristic properties, noticed in nature.”

 

 

 

My statement ‘Deuterons are major components of nuclei’ does not mean all nuclei are made up of deuterons or deuterons are the only constituents of nuclei.

 

Only a universal frame of reference can give us the real parameters of a macro body. Parameters of a macro body, deduced in relative reference frames depend and vary according to reference used. A single macro body cannot have differing set of true parameters. These parameters with respect to relative reference frame are apparent and can be used only for certain purposes, for which they are designed. As an example: Linear speeds of matter bodies do affect some of their body-parameters. Such effects can be predicted only by ‘real linear speed’ of these bodies in space. Real linear speed of a body is relative to an absolute reference. A static universal medium that fills the entire space (outside 3D matter particles) can provide an absolute frame of reference. All parameters of a macro body, related to absolute reference frame, will be true.

 

 

[swansont]

 

“Presently, scientists hold that the universe/world consists of distinctly different objects of diverse characteristic properties and then describe actions on them and interactions between them. Multiplicity of objects/particles enables possible falsification of any concept or theory. This property seems to be accepted as an essential prerequisite of all scientific theories. Nevertheless, note that this prerequisite is required only for those concepts/theories, which envisage more than one type of fundamental particles/entities.

Therefore, if there is only one type of real fundamental particles/entities in nature, there is very little chance to falsify and relatively easier to verify a concept, based on them. This fact alone should not be a reason to make a concept, non-scientific. At the same time, if this concept (based on only one type of real matter particles) can logically explain all physical phenomena, it will be good physics.

Regrettably, real matter particles, envisaged in my concept, are not physically observable by our present standards. This is not due to any of their deficiency, but because our three-dimensional-world-standards do not always suite them. They build entire universe as a single structure (no empty space) that provides for the existence and apparent interactions between superior bodies of diverse characteristic properties, noticed in nature.”

 

 

 

Why is it true that a construct with a single fundamental particle should not be falsifiable? You have presented absolutely nothing to support that. It is only an assertion on your part.

[matterdoc]

!

Moderator Note

You don't get to hide false statements behind the banner of "speculation." To the extent that present theories have evidence to support them, we should, and do, expect that speculation will agree with observation. We also expect that when instances where your hypothesis disagrees with observation, that you will address those objections

 

It has been observed that nuclei in excited states have more mass than ground state nuclei.

 

It should be trivial to calculate the amount of gravitational potential energy of the sun, and compare that to the amount that it radiates over a period of time. How long would the sun shine under these conditions?

 

Dear swansont,

 

Thanks for timely Moderation.

 

All real entities have definite structure. Properties of each type of superior body originate from the properties of their constituents and as modified by its peculiar structure. ‘Hypothesis on MATTER’ describes detailed structure, mechanisms of formation and stabilization of ‘primary matter particles’. An external pressure on these matter particles causes their expansion in size and reduction in matter/energy content. Generally, this is the cause of expansion in volume and reduction in weight (not widely accepted) of a macro body under heating. Energy content of a body is proportional to its matter content. Hence, a reduction in matter content is accompanied by reduction in energy content. Although mass of a body may represent its matter content in certain conditions, matter content and mass of a body are not equal or same. Depending on other parameters, mass of a body may change without changes in its matter content or vice versa.

 

In free space, external pressure on a macro body and its constituent matter particles is least. Primary matter particles of such macro bodies will reduce to smallest possible sizes and have highest possible matter/energy contents. Temperature in free (outer) space is least. Hence, a free body in free space is understood as in its coolest state.

 

Matter/energy contents, lost from primary matter particles, during heating or (gravitational) compression of a macro body are radiated in the form of low-frequency photons (heat rays). Frequency of radiation increases as magnitude of compression increases. This is the mechanism of heating a body under compression and radiation of energy/matter from very large macro bodies under gravitational collapse. Large planets give out infra-red radiations and stars give out radiations of higher frequencies, under same mechanism. Radiations from planets are never attributed to nuclear activities but radiations from stars are always attributed to nuclear activities. Basically, it is the matter which is being radiated and associated energy helps such radiations. Inter-particle gravitational attraction, during gravitational collapse of a large macro body, only aids to compress the macro body. Energy from gravitational collapse is in no way converted to radiations from the macro body.

 

I regret these may not make much sense. Unless ‘Hypothesis on MATTER’ is analyzed in a sequential manner, starting from the basic postulation, its conclusions are likely to appear as absurd statements. This is the major obstacle; I face, in convincing physicists at least to review the book.

 

 

[lemur]

I regret these may not make much sense. Unless 'Hypothesis on MATTER' is analyzed in a sequential manner, starting from the basic postulation, its conclusions are likely to appear as absurd statements. This is the major obstacle; I face, in convincing physicists at least to review the book.

 

I think it would help a lot if you explained concretely your basic assumptions about elementary particles and their relationship to mass and energy. You seem to be saying that these particles change mass according to their configuration with other particles and it is unclear to me how you are saying they generate and radiate energy and what the relationship is between their radiating qualities and their mass. Also, when you use the word, "weight," are you using it interchangeably with "mass," or do you subscribe to the normative definitions where weight varies with gravity-levels and mass is independent of gravity? Further, you seem to regard volume as inherent along with space, which is confusing, imo.

[Bignose]

As to falsification of my concept, let me quote from another of my posts.

 

swansont is asking you to describe an experiment that can be done which would prove that your idea is correct or incorrect with as little ambiguity as possible. This is the concept of falsifiability. If there isn't an experiment that would show your idea is incorrect, then you don't have a scientific theory. You have a fantasy story.

 

For example, if I believed there was no such thing as gravity -- that idea would be falsified the first time I dropped something.

 

Please describe an experiment (or experiments) that you could do to show your idea is correct (with little or no chance that other ideas are correct) or incorrect. We need to know what testing should be done to show that your idea, and only your idea, is the correct representation of physics.

[lemur]

For example, if I believed there was no such thing as gravity -- that idea would be falsified the first time I dropped something.

I don't think you can apply falsificationism to denial. If I theorize that there is a force called "sleepylimbs" that causes limbs to become numb sometimes and you believed there was no such force, would your belief be falsified the first time you woke up with your arm asleep?

[lemur]

For example, if I believed there was no such thing as gravity -- that idea would be falsified the first time I dropped something.

I don't think you can apply falsificationism to denial. If I theorize that there is a force called "sleepylimbs" that causes limbs to become numb sometimes and you believed there was no such force, would your disbelief be falsified the first time you woke up with your arm asleep?

[matterdoc]

Why is it true that a construct with a single fundamental particle should not be falsifiable? You have presented absolutely nothing to support that. It is only an assertion on your part.

Dear swansont,

 

Having two or more postulated particles in a theory, makes the theory liable for contradiction or circular logic, somewhere along its development. At least, there is a possibility of this happening. This is why it is assumed that scientific theories (based on more than one postulation) are liable for falsification. However advanced such a theory is, the possibility of falsification is always present. All of our current theories have more than one postulated (or assumed) particles and properties. Whenever an additional property is desirable, it has become natural for a physicist to adopt an assumed particle or properties that suit his theory. Since, currently we have no theory with a single (type of) postulated particle, falsification is generally considered as a common (essential) property of all scientific theories. This condition was made critical, probably under the impression that no concept based on single type of fundamental particle will be proposed ever.

 

If a theory has only one type of postulated particle, every detail in the theory relies on the properties of the postulated particle. A carefully prepared theory, based on a single postulation (single type of postulated particles), has no chance to contradict itself or for circular logic. Every action has to be preceded by a logical cause, all the way extending to initial postulation(s). All causes have to originate from initial postulated fundamental particle and result only in logical effects. There is no room for contradictions with any other particles or properties. Imaginary particles or assumed properties do not appear anywhere in the theory. Essential requirement of such a theory is that the properties of postulated particle are so chosen that they are able to explain all phenomena without contradiction or irrationality. They should be tabulated and made binding an all actions and mechanisms of actions. Single type of postulated fundamental particle(s) should be able form all other bodies, with diverse properties, in nature. Their (postulated) properties should provide definite base for all physical phenomena related to superior bodies, formed by them. It may be true that all causes and effects may not be observable due to our inability to do so. Even in such cases, overall results should be logical and incessant with the properties of single type of postulated fundamental particle(s). If this is done right, there is no possibility of falsification, in a theory with single type of basic particle.

 

 

 

If I were you, I would address the one about the relationship between energy, mass, and cooling; as swanont also commented on that part.

Dear, mississippichem

 

Thank you very much. I will start with a small note on ‘energy’. You are welcome to suggest another style. If this style is acceptable, I can describe my view of other entities and their actions for discussion after conclusion of discussion on ‘energy’.

 

‘Energy’ is defined as the ‘capacity or ability to do work’. It is understood as the creator of an effect. Capacity or ability is a qualification and hence a functional entity. An attribute or quality has no substance and therefore it is not a real entity. Energy, being a quality, it should naturally qualify some other real entity that can perform. Then, energy will be a measure of that entity’s ability to accomplish. Energy is a mathematical relation and an attribute of a real entity. Energy is always designated according to associated physical effect.

 

Although it was not essential for the development of mechanics, the concept of ‘energy’ was vaguely introduced into mechanics by Galileo in the 17^th century, in the form of ‘living force’. It came into prominence as the measure of capacity of work much later. Newton’s laws of motion recognize a relation between magnitude of external force on a body and the body’s acceleration. Comparison between spatial and temporal integrations of this relation established that “force is associated with acceleration of a mass, kinetic energy is the result of spatial integration of force, momentum is the result of temporal integration of force, energy is the measure of capacity to do work and power is the time-rate of energy transfer”.

 

These definitions are derived from mathematical operations of empirical data, obtained from moving bodies. Since no logical mechanisms of action of a force, creation/development of work or transfer of energy are envisaged, they have no conceptual basis. Currently, scientists in general, consider ‘energy’ as the primary entity in nature. It is represented in a number of assorted types of functional entities, existing usually along with matter bodies and rarely without matter bodies. It has different forms and properties to suit diverse occasions. Although, energy has no substance or real existence, it is treated for all purposes as a real entity. It is assumed as a tangible entity that can affect matter bodies in all fashions by doing work on them.

 

First type of energy recognized was kinetic energy. Notion of energy was progressively widened to include many other types of energies, each one associated with an apparent phenomenon. Towards the middle of 19^th century, even the heat was concluded as a form of energy. Recognition of heat as a form of energy and the assumption that ‘energy can neither be created nor destroyed’ led to the ‘energy conservation laws’. The conception of energy continued to expand to include many other types of energies, like; electric, magnetic, chemical, etc. energies. Advent of relativity theory caused even the mass to be equated with energy. The undefined space is recognized as store-house for (flux or field) energy, from which exotic matter particles or their characteristic properties may be produced. Energy is considered as a transferable or receivable attribute (like a fluid) of a real entity.

 

Energy associated with a body is assumed to reside about the body in the form of work-done. Mechanism of doing work is also unknown. Energy is usually associated with movements of real entities. Greater motion is understood to be associated with higher magnitude of ‘energy’. As, only real entities can be displaced in space, in classical theories, real entities were essential to bear or transfer energy. However, gradually, importance of this requirement is deteriorating. In few modern theories, energy is often associated with imaginary entities or sometimes the energy is assumed to exist independently in imaginary forms. Energy is considered as convertible to work or in some cases even to mass (vaguely suggesting a change in the matter content of a body). Currently, there are no explanations on energy’s form, structure, shape, existence, origin, working, etc. Nevertheless, ‘energy’ is often assigned independent physical existence in its own right.

 

Work is often defined as integral of a ‘force’, acting over a distance. This indicates that the ‘force’ is the cause of work or the transfer of energy. ‘Force’ is the rate of work-done. Hence, by doing work, it is the work itself that is being transferred and not the energy. Energy, corresponding to the magnitude of work, is always present where the work is present. Energy, defined as the capacity to do work, is the work itself, available for transfer from one location to another.

 

Work is required to change the state (of motion) of a real entity. Doing work on and about a real entity enables it to change its state (of motion) and at the same time develops/changes the real entity’s ability to do work on or about other real entities. Thus, it is seen that work on and about a real entity is the primary entity, which is being produced/transferred to or from a real entity. Energy is the result of presence of work about the real entity. This is generally considered as transfer of energy from one body to another. In reality, it is the work, which is being transferred from one real entity to another and energy is inherently developed along with the work.

 

Energy is a shadowy entity, derived from and complimentary to work. Wherever work is present, energy of corresponding magnitude develops. This has caused the assumption that energy is the entity that performs the work. Due to energy’s assumed ability to be converted into work, it is also measured in the same units of work. Yet we have no accepted ‘mechanism of action’. It is this absence of a mechanism of action, which caused the functional entity of ‘energy’ to usurp the rightful place of real entity of ‘work’ in mechanics.

 

 

 

‘Hypothesis on MATTER’ advances a clear and logical mechanism of action. This mechanism is an extension of structure and properties of single type of basic matter particles, postulated in the concept. It shows the work as a real entity in the form of distortions in the otherwise homogeneous universal medium. Since the universal medium is structured by real matter particles, distortion in the universal medium by displacements of its constituents is real. Transfer of these distortions from one place or from one body to another is the work-done by the ‘force-applying body’ on the force-receiving body’. Wherever, distortions in the universal medium are present, its constituent matter particles are displaced from their stable relative positions and put the universal medium’s structure under strain. Stress in the strained part of universal medium is the energy. Since the work is proportional to the distortions, energy or stress in the region is also proportional to the magnitude of work.

 

Work, in and about a body, confer it with its ability to do further work (on other bodies). Work is a real and tangible entity. Work is tangible in the sense that it is the magnitude of distortions in the universal medium. Energy is a functional entity that is inherently present wherever work is present. Unfortunately, since the universal medium is not directly observable by three-dimensional rational beings, work-done about a body remain obscure to us.

 

As energy and work are complimentary to each other, energy may continue to be used to represent work. However, assigning the status of real and primary entity to work may have definite advantages.