matter occupies space?

[URAIN]

In definition of matter, it comes that matter is one, which occupies space, and have the mass.

 

Matter occupy space, meant, what ?

 

Which are the things, do not occupy the space?

(In definition of matter, is there any necessity of saying that matter is one which occupy the space ?)

 

Why the two matters do not occupy same place, at same time ? (please try to answer by avoiding of pauli exclusion, if necessary include this too)

[dazdaryl]

Hi

 

I just wrote a thread about this.

http://www.sciencefo...-contradictory/

 

My belief is that Matter is an area of within space-time that is a void of space-time and that multiple types of matter can occupy the same space because they are both voids. So perhaps the correct answer IMO would be that space is capable of occupying matter but matter is not able to occupy space, but rather matter removes space.

 

I've come to the conclusion that Matter exists in a similar way to how wind propels sail boat, the wind blows across the sail and creates a slight vacuum of at the front of the sail that pulls the boat forward. Matter is the vacuum caused by parting fields of energy.

 

there are other things my theory explains to, my theory that states that once energy reaches a certain velocity it becomes unstable and breaks into waves causing matter to exist, which illustrates the big bang a littler better. It also reduces the universe being the existence of energy and void or perhaps simply, the existence and non-existence of energy.

 

 

my theory is that once energy reaches a certain charge it becomes unstable and splits, the splits which are void of energy give us matter, meaning that matter is not what the universe is made of but the void of universe, similar to the way a sail works when the wind causes a vacuum at the front of the sail to drag the boat forward. This explains a lot of things that have been observed at a sub-atomic level, such as why multiple particles can occupy the same space, or why particles are able to disappear and reappear in different locations, it also gives us a better understanding of the big bang and about a singular unified form of void-matter that existed before the big bang.

 

It is when this energy becomes unstable that it clumps together and forms more condensed waves, similar to how drops of water clump together with surface tension, and it the void gaps left by clumping energy that causes matter to seem to exist, which is almost a contradiction to what most people think, when they think of matter being the existence rather than the void.

Edited October 18, 2011 by dazdaryl

[swansont]

My belief is that

 

!

Moderator Note

dazdaryl Please become familiar with the rules

Rule 5 … you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory

Rule 10 Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking.

 

Don't derail the thread further by responding to this message

[DrRocket]

In definition of matter, it comes that matter is one, which occupies space, and have the mass.

 

Matter occupy space, meant, what ?

 

Which are the things, do not occupy the space?

(In definition of matter, is there any necessity of saying that matter is one which occupy the space ?)

 

Why the two matters do not occupy same place, at same time ? (please try to answer by avoiding of pauli exclusion, if necessary include this too)

 

 

Macroscopic matter certainly has volume.

 

But elementary particles are currently understood as points.

 

Then Paulimexclusion principle prevents two feermions from having the same quantum state state. It applies only to fermions, not to bosons. It does not prevent fermions from simply occupying the same position.

[URAIN]

I had posted same question on Yahoo answers. Now yahoo answer community chosen the following as best answer (answer by amin). Till I need something to be satisfied.

 

"Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

occupies space means has volume...go through the 5 points...get your concept clear..!!!!

1.Matter is the most striking feature of perceived reality. It is all around us and within us too.

2.Matter requires space - a tiny, tiny region or a vast, vast volume.

3.The universe is more empty than filled: matter is found only here and there in the vastness of its expanse.

4.Even though matter can be found all over the universe, you usually find it in just a few forms(solid,liquid,gases,plasma)

5. Matter is anything that has a mass.

 

i hope this helps (: "

[Guest Rollin78]

Elementary particles, such as electrons and quarks, don't take up spacethemselves, but the distance between them creates the size of atoms and molecules,making it appear that they do. Object are made up of multiple atoms which haveto remain a certain distance away from each other because of the duality principlewhich creates degeneracy pressure if they gettoo close together.

 

 

 

 

[URAIN]

Elementary particles, such as electrons and quarks, don't take up spacethemselves, but the distance between them creates the size of atoms and molecules,making it appear that they do. Object are made up of multiple atoms which haveto remain a certain distance away from each other because of the duality principlewhich creates degeneracy pressure if they gettoo close together.

 

Some people say, space is not empty. what you say about it ? Is there any specific definition of space?

 

 

 

[Xittenn]

I would like to try to give definitions to these.

 

Matter: Any wavelength whose properties can be observed classically under given observation.

 

Space: A relational substrate upon which observations can be made.

 

 

Then matter occupies 'a' space as we observe it.

 

Space could then be empty where the possibility of being 'non-empty' could be observed.

 

 

 

 

I hope I'm not speaking out of place!

[URAIN]

I would like to try to give definitions to these.

 

Matter: Any wavelength whose properties can be observed classically under given observation.

 

Space: A relational substrate upon which observations can be made.

 

 

Then matter occupies 'a' space as we observe it.

 

Space could then be empty where the possibility of being 'non-empty' could be observed.

 

 

I hope I'm not speaking out of place!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I heard that according to quark, only energy has existed everywhere and there is no matter. Is it true?

 

And, according to your definitions, to which option you will vote (to the poll).

Edited November 6, 2011 by URAIN

[URAIN]

Dear friends till now world was misunderstood natural phenomena.

 

Now I have released my papers on the blog

 

http://spaceandconse...-and-consensus/

 

After reading the papers please cast your vote for NO.

 

I will not force anyone.

 

If truth exist in my papers and your are in truth side. Then please cast your vote for NO.

 

 

("Even if majority of one, then also truth is truth"- M.K.Gandhi

 

 

 

Majority of vote will not decide the truth.

But, if majority of peoples are truth lovers and always in truthside,

then majority of vote will decide thetruth.

 

I think all scientific peoples aretruth lovers and always, they in truth side.

And in science, there is not space for MBA YBN and IAURN peoples. )

Edited February 20, 2012 by URAIN

[finster]

Hi

 

I just wrote a thread about this.

http://www.sciencefo...-contradictory/

 

My belief is that Matter is an area of within space-time that is a void of space-time and that multiple types of matter can occupy the same space because they are both voids. So perhaps the correct answer IMO would be that space is capable of occupying matter but matter is not able to occupy space, but rather matter removes space.

 

I've come to the conclusion that Matter exists in a similar way to how wind propels sail boat, the wind blows across the sail and creates a slight vacuum of at the front of the sail that pulls the boat forward. Matter is the vacuum caused by parting fields of energy.

 

there are other things my theory explains to, my theory that states that once energy reaches a certain velocity it becomes unstable and breaks into waves causing matter to exist, which illustrates the big bang a littler better. It also reduces the universe being the existence of energy and void or perhaps simply, the existence and non-existence of energy.

 

 

my theory is that once energy reaches a certain charge it becomes unstable and splits, the splits which are void of energy give us matter, meaning that matter is not what the universe is made of but the void of universe, similar to the way a sail works when the wind causes a vacuum at the front of the sail to drag the boat forward. This explains a lot of things that have been observed at a sub-atomic level, such as why multiple particles can occupy the same space, or why particles are able to disappear and reappear in different locations, it also gives us a better understanding of the big bang and about a singular unified form of void-matter that existed before the big bang.

 

It is when this energy becomes unstable that it clumps together and forms more condensed waves, similar to how drops of water clump together with surface tension, and it the void gaps left by clumping energy that causes matter to seem to exist, which is almost a contradiction to what most people think, when they think of matter being the existence rather than the void.

 

Not to veer off the thread but my own theory is very similar to this and yours make a lot of sense to me. I'm new to these forums but hopefully we'll have a lot to discuss and expand upon.

Edited February 20, 2012 by finster

[G.H]

Dear friends till now world was misunderstood natural phenomena.

 

Now I have released my papers on the blog

 

http://spaceandconse...-and-consensus/

 

After reading the papers please cast your vote for NO.

 

I will not force anyone.

 

If truth exist in my papers and your are in truth side. Then please cast your vote for NO.

 

 

("Even if majority of one, then also truth is truth"- M.K.Gandhi

 

 

 

Majority of vote will not decide the truth.

But, if majority of peoples are truth lovers and always in truthside,

then majority of vote will decide thetruth.

 

I think all scientific peoples aretruth lovers and always, they in truth side.

And in science, there is not space for MBA YBN and IAURN peoples. )

Namaste urain,I read your papers and i am impressed by your work but i have some doubts too.first,i would like to tell you i am only 15 years old am in 9th standard so i may not understand your all concepts clearly.please correct me.your first rival argument was

1.space is empty,it may only be filled.when its filled it will not allow other matter to occupy the space.if i amend it and say like this "space is empty,it may only be filled,when it is filled it will allow another matter to occupy the same space only if the matter which is existing previously is removed.". U have also wrote that matter is less denser moveable space.then we can compress space into liquid solid or gas and we can decompress atoms into space,please think upon it

[URAIN]

Namaste urain,I read your papers and i am impressed by your work but i have some doubts too.first,i would like to tell you i am only 15 years old am in 9th standard so i may not understand your all concepts clearly.

 

 

Sorry vedprakash, clearly misunderstood.

 

Please show this to your elders or your teacher who think even more logically.

 

please correct me.your first rival argument was

1.space is empty,it may only be filled.when its filled it will not allow other matter to occupy the space.if i amend it and say like this "space is empty,it may only be filled,when it is filled it will allow another matter to occupy the same space only if the matter which is existing previously is removed.".

 

Your (blue line) is correct.

 

Vedprakash please understand, how I have written this paper?

 

Why I have used the rival arguments in my writing?

 

You have to understand that it is argument of opposite person (who may place in discussion).

which is used myself for easily understand the phenomena.

 

(There is no need that opposite person argue must be true. He may use it intentionally to see what answer will come from me.)

 

You have to understand that in my writing, I have played double role.

 

1) One as explaining real natural phenomena. It is me.

 

2) Second as the person who tries to defend the established science definition. OR who tries to test my knowledge or who intentionally try to irritate me. That is opposite person.

 

Dear Ved prakash you have to understand that the lines (green) which you are mentioning are words opposite person. who tries to defend the established definition of matter.

 

 

U have also wrote that matter is less denser moveable space.then we can compress space into liquid solid or gas and we can decompress atoms into space,please think upon it

 

Here also you misunderstood.

 

First of all, If you thoroughly read, you know that I have not said matter as less denser movable space. In my paper "less denser movable space" is indicating to the liquid. You read once.

Then you convert this less denser space to solid or gas.

 

While I gone on writing, there come a situation to say matter definition as

 

"Matter is that which have space."

 

In paper when I checked the occupy process, then any matter not occupied space other than it.

 

Then argument come that, Matter can occupy it's own space.

 

If matter occupy it's own space. then it implies matter has it's own space.

 

Converse of this sentence is will be,

 

Space has the mass. (converse of Matter has it's own space.)

 

In particularly I have said matter as denser space, to differentiate space from matter.

 

(It is you understood as space can be converted into matter. It is wrong.)

 

Hope this makes sens to you.

 

At your age I was not member of site like this and have not tried to understand paper like this.

 

Your willingness about getting knowledge is appreciated.

 

(Thinking that, discussing my paper here anyone may have objection, I have started a thread on speculation http://www.sciencefo...-and-consensus/.)

 

 

[G.H]

ok,when getting time i would discuss and try to understand it thoroughly with help of someone.thanks for reply.

[URAIN]

Dear 11 members, (who cast their vote for "YES" to the poll)

 

 

You have cast your vote for "YES" to the poll. (Means you are saying matter occupies space.)

 

Please listen, the science at now which level exist, that was not reached this stage in a night or in a

 

day. Many more changes had occurred in science.

 

At past lot of false things were exist in the name of science.

 

For example,

 

1) At past it was accepted that sun is orbiting the earth.

 

2) At past it was understood as earth is flat.

 

As time was passed new truthful thoughts were emerged.

 

After emerging truth also, truth was not accepted immediately.

 

The person from whom truth was came he was ridiculed.

 

Some examples is there that who told truth they got imprisonment, even death sentence.

 

 

 

We have to learn a lesson from history that after death (or murder) of those people also truth was

 

not dead. Because truth will not die any way. For some time, in some region it may be covered by

 

illusion but it exist for forever.

 

 

 

Matter does not occupy space. It is truth.

 

Matter occupy space, only which it contain.

 

Any condition matter will not occupy space, other than it.

 

 

Please think about your vote. As time will pass, it will also accepted that, matter not occupy space.

 

But the voter's who voted for 'YES' will not counted as accepter of truth.

 

 

Please rethink about your vote that, did you cast your vote in truth side or opposite to truth side.

 

(If you have any questions, doubts related to "matter not occupying space" you may get solution by reading paper http://spaceandconsensus.wordpress.com.)

[URAIN]

Dear members

 

You may decide about "Matter occupy space" OR not.

 

By observing and testing, my predictions with natural existences and natural phenomena.

 

 

 

(Established science matter= average density, which is greater than zero

 

and space= a size of emptiness or a size with zero density.

 

The question is "density greater than zero" occupies only it's own space OR occupy "emptiness" other than it. )

 

 

 

I have given predictions in this thread.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64596-dear-physics-experts/page__st__20__gopid__664700#entry664700

 

(If you think, you are in truth side,

and truth exist in my predictions

and you would like, truth should be focused from this forum to the world,

 

then cast your vote for "NO" to the poll.)

[URAIN]

Recently I have explained that, how matter not occupies space, in my speculation thread.

 

I was given this thread link in that post.

 

But, as latest this act is considering as thread advertising.

(hypervalent_iodine removed link from that thread by giving reason of "advertise")

 

Do moderator of this forum allow me to explain here about, how matter not occupies space; with my paper figures and with my predictions?

 

(I am asking permission before writing, because I don't like any notice and any manipulation in my postings by others .)

Edited April 4, 2012 by URAIN

[URAIN]

This is the main stream sub forum. Here only main stream physics will be discussed.

 

 

"Matter occupies space " is the saying of main stream physics.

 

In the poll majority of votes are came in the favor of main stream physics.

 

But I am rejecting the "matter occupies space" and I am saying that "matter does not occupy space, other than it"

 

In this forum there are many scholars, doctors (Phd), who always defend the main stream physics.

 

I am rejecting the "matter occupies space, other than it".

 

Hence any one expert or member who cast their vote in favor of established science or any one defender of established science,

 

Defend established science by explaining, how matter occupy space?

 

 

If you will not defend it, then from this forum a message will go to the rest world that

 

"Matter does not occupy space, other than it".

 

I think it is my last post on this thread, (if any one will not given response to this) and

 

it will be (not defending the established science) an acceptance from this forum that matter does not

occupy space other than it.

 

Thank you.