Hypothesis on MATTER

[swansont]

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.

 

 

Falsifiability is not so much about the internal consistency of a model; if it contradicts itself it's DOA. No, what we mean by falsifiability is what experiments you could contrive to test your theory to make sure it describes how nature behaves. To do this you need to make specific predictions, and then see if these predictions are borne out. If there are no tests which would, in principle, show your model to be wrong, then what you're doing isn't science. The notion that a single-particle model isn't falsifiable is rubbish, and would be but one reason physicists would not bother to review your work.

[Ophiolite]

I regret these may not make much sense........... its conclusions are likely to appear as absurd statements.

It's good to know we have some common ground.

[Bignose]

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?

 

It does falsify a disbelief in the possibility of limbs "falling asleep".

[lemur]

It does falsify a disbelief in the possibility of limbs "falling asleep".

Yes, but you said that if you don't believe in gravity, someone could falsify your disbelieve by dropping something. That implies that gravity must exist as a force by falsification of disbelief that it is the cause of falling objects. In other words, you want to use an empirical fact to verify the existence of a force by falsifying disbelief.

 

Thus, I came up with a falsificatory example of your logic by plugging in a ridiculous force called "sleepylimbs" (I still think this sounds funny btw). If you disbelieve that the force, sleepylimbs, exists and your arm falls asleep it doesn't falsify your disbelief in the force and thus prove that sleepylimbs in fact exists as a force. It just verified the empirical fact that limbs can fall asleep. In your example, you didn't falsify disbelief in gravity; you just confirmed that things fall when dropped. Some other force could still be responsible for the falling; such as sleepylimbs;)

Edited October 23, 2010 by lemur

[matterdoc]

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.

 

Dear lemur,

 

Thanks and sorry for confusions.

 

‘Hypothesis on MATTER’ has only one type of postulated basic particles, in it. They are ‘quanta of matter’. Since quantum of matter is a postulated particle, no questions on its creation or reasons for its existence arise. There are infinite numbers of quanta of matter in nature that fill the entire space. Space is an imaginary region, presupposed by rational beings to serve as place of existence, whenever they envisage matter bodies. Quanta of matter exist perpetually. All other real matter bodies are structured by the quanta of matter and exist within the sea of the same. All functional entities are developed from characteristic properties of ‘quanta of matter’.

 

A ‘quantum of matter’ is postulated as the smallest ‘real’ matter particle. Since matter is its substance, a quantum of matter is a real entity and it has objective existence in all spatial dimensions. Tendency of matter in a quantum of matter to coagulate produces its definite structure, properties and ability to act (all, part of initial postulation). Affinity of matter within a quantum of matter provides it with a tendency to revert towards single-spatial dimensional status.

 

In its natural free state, a quantum of matter has only length as its tangible measurement. Reducing its length by external efforts compels its body to grow in width, thus developing into two-dimensional quanta of matter until it becomes a circular material object. Reducing the area of a two-dimensional quantum of matter compels its body to grow in thickness and become a three-dimensional material object. Unfortunately, the length of a quantum of matter, even in its one-dimensional spatial state, is so small that it is difficult to measure it by our 3D measurements scale, directly. Because of their peculiar structure, quanta of matter in different planes are able to co-exist at the point of their crossings.

 

A quantum of matter further has a measure of its matter content. Matter content of a body is not directly tangible. Magnitudes of matter content in quanta of matter may vary from one quantum of matter to another. A quantum of matter is an independent matter body. It maintains its individuality under all conditions.

 

Matter content of a quantum of matter has the same affinity towards the matter content of any other quantum, which is in contact with it in the same plane. When two quanta are in contact, their matter contents tend to merge. Tendency of two quanta of matter, in contact in the same plane, to merge produces attraction between them and helps them to form quanta-chains in single-spatial dimension. Occasional breakdown of quanta-chains and availability of free quanta of matter to migrate into the chains helps quanta-chains to have excess number of quanta of matter in them to keep all quanta of matter in a chain under compression from their ends.

 

Quanta-chains in rectangular directions together form two-spatial dimensional latticework structures. Structure of quanta of matter prevents them from forming three-dimensional latticework structures. Two-dimensional latticework structures by quanta of matter (in all possible planes in space) together form an all-encompassing universal medium. Universal medium is formed by quanta of matter of (somewhat) equal matter contents. Quanta of matter with widely differing magnitudes of matter content help to form disturbances in universal medium, which may lead towards creation of three-dimensional matter. Since the universal medium (a real entity structured by matter) fills the entire space, it can replace the formless and imaginary space.

 

For detailed description on the structure, characteristic properties and actions of postulated quanta of matter, kindly refer the book, ‘Hypothesis on MATTER’.

 

 

 

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.

 

Dear bignose,

 

Most phenomena in physics rely on concepts using imaginary effects, mathematical constructs and exotic entities for their explanations. Each of them has its own mathematical justifications. They are well received by physicists and generally believed to be true. However, currently we also ignore many physical phenomena, only because they have not even explanations on these lines. They seem to be very complicated to explain even on the basis of accepted physical laws. Simple and logical explanations on few of these may serve to show the logic of ‘Hypothesis on MATTER’.

 

To mention a few of these phenomena:- Terrestrial tides leading/lagging local meridian, Greater magnitude of lunar tides compared to solar tides, Origin of planetary spin, Higher spin speed of equatorial region of very large bodies, Elongation of solar days, What moves and controls the speed of light, Reversal of terrestrial magnetism, Nature and classification of electric charge, Creation of three-dimensional matter, etc.

 

I believe ‘Hypothesis on MATTER’ can give logical explanations on all physical phenomena including those mentioned above. Links to articles/calculations, explaining these may be found on my website, www . matterdoc . info (please remove spaces). I hope by reading few indicated articles you may be able to form an opinion on the merit of the concept. I will appreciate critical evaluation by readers. For general basic explanations and details on specific phenomenon you may have to refer to the books, ‘Hypothesis on MATTER’ or ‘Gravitation’. Kindly note that these books and articles are neither edited nor reviewed. They are self published.

 

 

[Bignose]

Most phenomena in physics rely on concepts using imaginary effects, mathematical constructs and exotic entities for their explanations.

 

If the mathematics is ahead of the experiment, then the math shows what experiments need to be performed to ultimately accept or reject the math. Nothing is taken just based on mathematics. Once the experiment is performed that confirms the math, then the math is accepted as a description of nature.

 

This is why they build things like the Hubble telescope and the Large Hadron collider -- it isn't just for pretty pictures or fun. They are collecting data to confirm or reject the current models.

 

So, until you can describe experiments that will show that your model is correct or incorrect, you are just story telling. Not performing science. Experimentation is at the very core of what science is.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Bignose

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

matterdoc , you have been given ample opportunity to present evidence in support of your thesis, but have not only declined to do so, but admitted you cannot. Accordingly, this subject is now closed.

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=29