Dear (physics) experts,

[URAIN]

please answer my question in a very specific manner, one or two lines will do, addressing the question and nothing else.That should also help clarify your thought.

 

I think you are asking that, how emptiness can be converted into filled or denser?

 

Is not it?

 

My paper can not says, like emptiness can be converted into density.

[qsa]

Urain if you don't define the words properly and state the concepts clearly . You will get a situation like This.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't mean anything bad by that.

[URAIN]

Urain if you don't define the words properly and state the concepts clearly . You will get a situation like This.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't mean anything bad by that.

 

There is missing in our communication. Or we are not understanding our voice fully.

 

From first detailed response (to you) I have tried to say, it is (space and denser space) only seeing nature by means of space (which is measurable).

 

While I have said that in this universe only space is the existence. This space mainly has two types.

 

I think you were understood, in this universe empty space is only existence. From empty space, denser space get originated.

 

Please sorry. I have not said it in this manner. I have said space (first space or single existence) as the existence, which can be measurable, or length distance ect...........

 

I have not said this "space" which is in at first position as empty space or filled space (denser space) and in future also I will not say this thing.

 

As I understand it is impossible. But why impossible and why it is possible is not the subject of this thread.

 

I will say it in future.

 

(I think you are working in the way, from empty space, denser space will emerge. But, I don't say like this. I have prediction that from origin time also these two spaces were self existed.)

[URAIN]

If you ever do attain a perfect understanding of the neutron, please let others know immediately.

 

It will be the first example of a perfect understanding of ANYTHING in the history of science.

 

Until then we will just have to muddle along with models of increasing accuracy, but never perfect.

 

(This is from thread http://www.sciencefo...662#entry661662 )

 

 

DrRocket,

 

Before Chadwick discovery of neutron, Rutherford was speculated in the 1920 that, charge less particle may be exist in the nucleus .

 

He was assumed this. For his assumption, he was given the reason that alpha particle has positive charge, This positive charge enters into the positively charged nucleus. It is the opposition to the rule of charges.

 

Because as per established science, same charge always repel. Alpha particle entered into nucleus means there may be charge less particle exist.

 

 

 

 

 

Now I speculate "assumption of Rutherford" in the way of URAIN paper resistance of movement rule.

 

I assume positive charge as more denser particle. Then alpha particle and proton will become more denser particle.

 

My paper resistance of movement rule says, more denser existence shows more resistance to movement of more denser existence.

 

As per this resistance rule alpha particle should not enter into the nucleus. (Alpha particle and proton both are more denser particle.)

 

More denser entity alpha particle entered into nucleus of more denser entity means some nil density entity exist in the nucleus.

 

Because as per URAIN resistance of movement rule: Nil density existence will not shows any resistance for the movement of other denser existence.

 

 

As per this resistance of movement rule, nil density existence which exists in nucleus not showed any resistance for movement of alpha particle. Thats why alpha particle entered into the nucleus.

 

In this universe "nil density" indicates only empty space.

 

On applying URAIN paper resistance of movement rule, it again indicates neutron is the empty space.

[URAIN]

 

Dear URAIN,

 

I read your paper. It fails to convince me. There are flaws in the rationale presented by you.

 

The following are the flaws I would like to bring to your notice;

 

When something is added to nothing, there would be no increase.

 

Space is not displaced. When solid 'A' is placed in region 'Z', the Space in the region 'Z' does not get displaced, instead it remains where it was prior to occupation. But now it exists as occupied Space. And the region of Space where the solid 'A' was occupying prior to region 'Z', now becomes vacated Space. There is a virtual displacement, like the virtual movement of 'Holes' opposite to the direction of the movement of Electrons.

 

[4-D Minkowski spacetime is a great model of Space for example. We can easily know that, every part of Space has different coordinates. Every part of Space is different from every other part of Space since every part of Space has its own unique position in the Universe. And those positions cannot be altered/changed/displaced simply because Space does not have that property.]

 

Empty volume of space may get displaced but it is not the same Space. A volume of space & actual Space are two different things. A volume of space is just a general mathematical quantity. But a chunk of Space is a section of the overall Space which has a unique position in the Universe that can not be altered/changed/displaced.

 

It is not possible to put solid 'B' in the same region because the Space is occupied. To occupy; you need un-occupied Space. To occupy an occupied Space; you need to displace the Occupant. When the Occupant is displaced, the Space becomes un-occupied again, and can then be occupied.

 

Thank you

 

Anilkumar in your thread you had said, space is an existent and it has the property, allowing itself to be occupied by matter.

 

Although once again I would like to know your view, that,

 

Space is an existence or not?

 

If space is an existence, then what is it's property?

 

Please give response.

[URAIN]

 

1) "Resistance" for any movement is mainly depending on differences in between two existences density.

 

a) Relative more denser existence always shows high resistance, for a movement of a relative less denser existence.

 

 

b) Relative less denser existence always shows less resistance, for movement of relative more denser existence.

 

c) Nil density existence will not show any resistance to all other denser existences.

 

 

 

 

 

2) If two existences have same density levelthen "resistance" for movement is mainly depending on density level of two existences. i.e.

 

 

 

a) More denser existence shows high resistance, to movement of other more denser existence.

 

b) Less denser existenceshows less resistance to movement of other less denser existence.

 

c) Nil denser existence showsnil resistance to other nil denser existence.

 

 

Next, I will proceed, to the point of subject. (From which world will change it's thinking.)

 

 

Therefore, If any member has objections or opposition to above my predictions then they may place it in discussion.

 

I am asking this because an expert had said that, if there is no concrete to test and observe then in physics that will not get any opposition.

 

(I think if concrete prediction is the reality of natural phenomena, then also it will not get more opposition from truth accepting community of physics.)

 

 

 

[URAIN]

In science already a ready made food has existed to say my main prediction. But till it has some confusions, till that food need some perfect ness. Therefore I will not use to say my main prediction.

 

Scientific method needs observation and test of some natural phenomena.

 

As per this requirement now I am giving another prediction, which is based on the same (little) experiment's of my paper.

 

Now you can observe and test these following prediction.

 

 

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

Prediction

Movement of an existence is mainly depending on displacementof another existence (OR displacement of another existence's content or changing position of another eixistence.).

 

Inverse of prediction: Without displacing another existence (ORdisplacement of another existence's content or changing position of anothereixistence.), an existence will not move.

 

(Movement of one existence is the indication of displacement of another existence.)

 

1) Movement of every existence is taking place, mainly by displacing, another low level density existence.

 

2) If a denser existence is observed in, some another existence and it's speed is relatively slow (zero or near to zero) then that trying to displace high level denser existence.

 

3) If a denser existence is observed in, some another existence and it's speed is relatively high then that displacing low level denser existence.

 

 

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

 

 

In reply to Ajb's question, I have already said that, what is an existence?

 

 

Now I am defining the "existence"with accuracy. From which you can check and observe these predictions. (These also help's to quantitative predictions.)

 

 

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

Q. Which is an existence?

 

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

(Size may contain zero density also.)

 

 

Q. How we differentiate two different existences?

 

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

 

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

 

 

(If reader's and expert's suggest any modification then it will be considered.)

Now please answer the question,

 

Does "established science matter" ( OR density greater than zero) is independent of space (emptiness)

 

or dependentof space (emptiness) ?

 

Before answering, please apply above predictions to particles of solid, liquid and Gas.

 

 

[URAIN]

After observing and testing my predictions with natural existences and natural phenomena,

 

I hope members have came out of confusion about matter occupy space or not,

 

And I hope members have came to the decision about "matter not occupy space other than it".

 

If you were came out of confusion and came to the one side decision, then please cast your vote to the poll of this thread http://www.sciencefo...854#entry664854

 

 

 

( World is waiting for an opinion about "matter occupy space or not" by the wise and truth accepting community. The community, which is always involved in searching of truth by observing and checking natural phenomena.)

[michel123456]

(...)

 

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

Prediction

Movement of an existence is mainly depending on displacementof another existence (OR displacement of another existence's content or changing position of another eixistence.).

 

Inverse of prediction: Without displacing another existence (ORdisplacement of another existence's content or changing position of anothereixistence.), an existence will not move.(...)

 

You should have stated that "Without changing the state of motion of another existence an existence will not change its state of motion".

We know that motion is relative. For someone, something is moving. But for another observer that same thing is at rest. There is no global frame of reference from which we can measure absolute motion.

But if you talk about changing the state of motion instead of pure motion, then maybe your statement could make some sense.

Edited March 14, 2012 by michel123456

[URAIN]

You should have stated that "Without changing the state of motion of another existence an existence will not change its state of motion".

We know that motion is relative. For someone, something is moving. But for another observer that same thing is at rest. There is no global frame of reference from which we can measure absolute motion.

But if you talk about changing the state of motion instead of pure motion, then maybe your statement could make some sense.

 

First of all, I say "thank you, very much" for giving response.

 

Because, In this forum or speculation sub forum, when honorable administrators see, some thing is going wrong then they will be united to protest against that wrong thing (which they think).

 

But when they see, some thing is going on systemic way of scientific method, then they will not united to support or encourage or to give suggestions.

 

Some honorable person, in some where, said that this forum critique is more important than usually publishing in other publication.

 

 

 

 

When something publish in some publication, then also you will not ready to accept that directly.

 

And you are not ready to give any critique, which is placed on this forum.

 

Then where, persons have to go (who were placed their work on this forum)?

 

Do they have to join any another forum?

 

When something you consider wrong, then you think it is my duty to object this. But when you see something is going in right way then you will not think it's your duty to give some positive response.

 

They say, science also testable and falsifiable.

If you get something to test, then why are not, you testing this? and why you are hesitating to accept some of established science definition is wrong?

 

All are sensitive, hence I think, it is not right thing, to say more than this.

 

(I will not consider Ajb as "hit and run " person. He was the person, who had read my paper at first. Yes, he also hit, but he has traveled along with me to the some stage of laboratory.

 

He only left me, when situation made to authentically accept the thing, which is against to the established science.)

 

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

 

 

Now I will come to the subject, which you were raised.

 

You have not commented about my first prediction about "Resistance for movement".

 

If you only consider main statement of that, then that prediction also will not make clear sense,.

 

(i.e. Resistance for any movement mainly depending on differences in between two existences density.)

 

If any person consider only this statement, then he will not clear about the natural phenomena.

 

To make clear, with this main statement, he has to consider below three statements also.

 

Ajb considered, third sub statement with main prediction, then only he has guessed this as inertia.

 

(Ajb, if you keenly observed other two sub statements of resistance for movement, then you know that only inertia will not come in that prediction.)

 

Michel, I think your problem is ' to which, we have to consider as a movement and to which, we have to consider as displacement. Because every thing is moving and same thing is at rest in other observer.'

 

Dear Friend,

 

Which you have quoted in your response that is the general prediction. If any one want's to specifically understand that statement, then he has to consider the next sub statements also.

(I have given sub statement's for giving clear sense to readers.)

 

Suppose take first sub statement,

1)Movement of every existence is taking place, mainly by displacing, another low level density existence.

 

I know a observer will not see all things are moving.

 

But as per an observer, which he consider moving,

 

corresponding to movement of that existences, which are low level density existences, they are

 

displacing.

 

Suppose an observer observe, particles of liquid is moving.

 

For displacement, here we have to see, which is low level density existence? corresponding to moving particle of liquid.

 

My prediction says that, this low level density existence is displacing by movement of particle of liquid.

 

I think from this explanation readers make clear sense about prediction.

( If I think it is necessary, then I will add "relative" word to the sub statements.)

 

If any other fault you see in my prediction, kindly expose that.

 

 

(Now, for second sub prediction of "movement " I add a word "partially".

 

Second sub statement says,

 

2) If a denser existence is observed in some another existence, (here I modify as below)

 

2) If a denser existence is observed partially in some another existence, and it's speed is relatively slow (zero or near to zero) then that trying to displace another high level denser existence.

 

And add another sub prediction as

 

4) By movement of an existence, displacement of another existence is only limited up-to lowest density existence. Means, movement of lowest density existence will not displace any other denser existence.)

 

Thanking you

 

URAIN

Edited March 15, 2012 by URAIN

[URAIN]

could make some sense.

 

Dear Michel, things are going better. After you expressing confusion about my prediction, now I have modified above 'movement' prediction in this way.

 

By this, prediction has got more perfection.

 

Prediction

 

An existence (E1) speed is greater than zero, if and only, if it is capable to displace another existence (E2 or its content), which has existed in between E1 existence and the direction of force (or net force).

Suppose assume force motivating E1 to move towards its "east" direction.

 

 

North

 

 

 

<-- East E1 West

 

 

 

 

South

 

Then E1 displaces another existence, which has existed in its east direction.

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

 

 

Inertial motion

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

 

Hence E1 speed may be,

 

E1 speed = The length of E2 existence (towards direction of force), which has displaced, in a specified time by the force related to E1 density.

Non inertial motion

N

In non inertial motion, the net force, which changes the velocity of E1 will capable to displace E2 existence.

 

Hence E1 speed may be,

 

E1 speed = The length of E2 existence (towards direction of force), which has displaced, in a specified time; when the net force, applied on E1 existence.

 

If we will do the experiments,then E1 (denser) existence will takes least time to displace nil density existence comparatively to any other denser existence.

 

Because resistance for any entities movement is mainly depending on, another existence density. But space (size with nil density) or emptiness has not any density and it will not show any resistance for other denser existence movement.

 

Hence denser existence takes least time to displace the empty existence.

 

(If anything takes,relatively least time for that's motion, then it shows emptiness was existed in that region.)

 

It indicates,

 

1) Space or emptiness has existed in this universe.

2) Space existed separately than denser existence.

3) It existed separately; therefore other denser existence will not require space (volume with nil density) for its survival, in this universe.

Hence space is different than the matter.

 

Matter not occupies space,other than it.

 

 

 

(U R ALL I am NOT {URAIN} actually I am nothing in this truth showing science field, therefore your suggestion's are welcome.)

[G.H]

dear urain,first of all i want to say that my exams are going on,so i will not be active on this forum till 28th or 30th.i saw ur conversation so i am replying you.

You are saying that movement of any existence occurs by displacing another low level density existence..And in your opinion space is also an existence,that means when i move my hand,i displace some space.you have also said somewhere that space is massless matter.so can i take a vacuum pump and pull out space from a glass jar.i am being confused over the point.

[URAIN]

dear urain,first of all i want to say that my exams are going on,so i will not be active on this forum till 28th or 30th.i saw ur conversation so i am replying you.

You are saying that movement of any existence occurs by displacing another low level density existence..And in your opinion space is also an existence,that means when i move my hand,i displace some space.you have also said somewhere that space is massless matter.so can i take a vacuum pump and pull out space from a glass jar.i am being confused over the point.

 

 

Vedprakash, your exam is going on, I wish you, best of luck for that.

 

Now I am thinking that giving response to your question will become right or wrong. Because, again it will disturb you.

 

But, if I have not given answer, then also there will be a misunderstanding in the forum, that I have not answer, for your question.

 

Because in this world, if any active expert have answer for a question, then he will give answer to that. If he does not have perfect answer (or if he has confusion), then he will be silent.

 

(This thread title is "Dear experts,do you have answers for my question". They have not answered, and now it is assuming that they don't have perfect answer for my question.

 

Experts are really, experts.There is no doubt in it. But when I was started this thread, then I was unknowingly expected an extraordinary, kind hearted, broad minded expert; who can answer my question with courage and will receive me in his group. Unfortunately I have not found a great expert. )

 

I am giving response only keeping in mind, other members; who are watching this thread. You can give response, when you will get free time.

 

Your question is so nice.

 

My perfect modified prediction says,

 

An existence (E1) speed will be greater than zero, if and only, if it is capable to displace another existence (E2 or its content), which has existed in between E1 existence and the direction of force (or net force).

 

In easy way it is understood as "movement of every existence occurs, mainly by displacing another low level density existence.

("mainly" word missing in your quote, if it is not added then again this will create doubt.)

 

 

You are asking that, is it possible to displace (pull out) space from jar by vacuum pump?

 

It is so easy, why you have to use vacuum pump to displace that (if really pure empty space has existed in there.).

 

As per my paper and in reality, space or emptiness is a nil density existence. It is the least low level density existence of the world.

 

In most of cases and always, low level denser existence has displaced by movement of a high denser existence.

 

 

Here you are asking about displacement of lowest level density existence. For this simply, fill the pure vacuum existed region, with any other high denser existence. (Like water,solid, gas, or photon, which have high density than pure empty space.)

 

Then pure empty space will not exist in that region (where previously pure vacuum was existed).

 

I give one example for that.

 

Experts say's that nothing (in their meaning, 'nothing' means space or vacuum) has existed in this universe (beyond earth atmosphere, cosmic region) and it is unstable.

 

It is unstable because, it is displacing by movement of other high density existences, which are in continues motion.

 

In this universe everything is moving that may be planet, galaxy, or energy light rays ect.

 

 

These all have high density comparing to nil density space. That's why space ( or nothing, in the meaning of experts) has displaced from one region to another region and it looks to us as unstable.

 

Second thing I am requesting to members that please, show me or make me familiar about pure denser existence of the world. Because as I know every denser existence has some vibration or that has internal movement by its particle.

 

Vibration is a type of movement and every movement must and should need empty space in its surroundings.

 

 

Because, primary requirement for movement of a denser existence is emptiness. But lot of people think force is the primary requirement for denser existence movement.

 

I am not rejecting force importance. It is needed for a movement. But, when denser existence itself existed as a force, then next requirement for movement is emptiness.

 

 

Yes, I have said space as mass less matter. But as I understand (now), similarities in between space and matter is only size or volume, which can be measurable. Other than this, these two are opposite to each other (as per my current understanding).

 

Hence space will not converted into mass and mass will not converted into space.

 

Thank you

 

 

[qsa]

URAIN,

 

Look What I have found for you, you will love it. Scientific Research Centre BISTRA, Ptuj, Slovenia

 

Abstract

 

Clocks measure a frequency, velocity and numerical order of change. Experimental date confirms that changes and clocks do not run time; they run in quantum space only. Time is not a part of quantum space. Quantum space itself is timeless. In the universe as a whole amount of matter energy and amount of quantum space energy is constant. Density of mass and density of quantum space in a given volume of quantum space tends to be constant. Mass here is considered as a compressed energy of quantum space. Presence of mass in a given volume of quantum space diminishes its density. Massive objects move always into direction of lover density of quantum space. Gravitational motion of massive objects is result of change of density of quantum space. In space with no change of density massive object will not have gravitational motion as in centre of stellar objects or in a flat quantum space where massive objects are far away.

 

Change of density of quantum space corresponds in General Theory of Relativity to the change of the curvature of space. Lower is density of quantum space bigger is its curvature. Here is introduced density/curvature of quantum space.

 

Change of density of quantum space corresponds in General Theory of Relativity to the change of the curvature of space. Lower is density of quantum space bigger is its curvature. Here is introduced density/curvature of quantum space.

 

My link

 

this guy has an article for physorg.org

My link2

Edited March 26, 2012 by qsa

[URAIN]

URAIN,

 

Look What I have found for you, you will love it. Scientific Research Centre BISTRA, Ptuj, Slovenia

 

Abstract

 

Clocks measure a frequency, velocity and numerical order of change. Experimental date confirms that changes and clocks do not run time; they run in quantum space only. Time is not a part of quantum space. Quantum space itself is timeless. In the universe as a whole amount of matter energy and amount of quantum space energy is constant. Density of mass and density of quantum space in a given volume of quantum space tends to be constant. Mass here is considered as a compressed energy of quantum space. Presence of mass in a given volume of quantum space diminishes its density. Massive objects move always into direction of lover density of quantum space. Gravitational motion of massive objects is result of change of density of quantum space. In space with no change of density massive object will not have gravitational motion as in centre of stellar objects or in a flat quantum space where massive objects are far away.

 

Change of density of quantum space corresponds in General Theory of Relativity to the change of the curvature of space. Lower is density of quantum space bigger is its curvature. Here is introduced density/curvature of quantum space.

 

Change of density of quantum space corresponds in General Theory of Relativity to the change of the curvature of space. Lower is density of quantum space bigger is its curvature. Here is introduced density/curvature of quantum space.

 

My link

 

this guy has an article for physorg.org

My link2

 

When I uploaded my paper on the blog, I was intended to discuss about it, in the forum. For this (as per forum rule) I have started a separate thread. Where, it is able to discuss only subject of my paper (without diverting the direction to any other side).

 

Hence I will give response to a post by thinking that, how post's subject has relation with my paper's subject.Because, there is a chance of diverting the direction of discussion to other side, instead of my paper's subject.

 

 

(Ajb was accepted my request,when I was said to him that "please don't bring the space time in this discussion, if you think space and space time are different".)

 

Based on some simple experiments, my paper perfectly says

 

1) Property of the space.

 

2) Matter (which contain density greater than zero) not occupy the space (emptiness).

 

3) Reason for expansion of space

 

On base of property of space it says about the "neutron".

 

Based on P. P. Principle it says

 

1) Origin of universe (what was existed at the origin time.)

 

In the paper I was not given predictions separately. But based on the my paper's simple experiments, now I have given predictions, which are testable.

 

I think your post is a reaction for my statement about, mass and space are opposite and space (emptiness) will not converted into mass.

 

 

If we take a look on my first prediction, "Resistance for movement", then it expresses that property of space (nil density existence) and property of matter (density greater than zero existence)are opposite to each other.

 

Therefore I have said that mass and space are opposite to each other and space (emptiness) will not converted into mass; mass will not converted into space (emptiness).

 

 

 

Suppose you consider an existence, which is summation of A+B

 

Existence = A+B

 

 

We know the property of A is C and we don't know the property of B.

 

But practically we know that,in a volume as A increases C increases and as B increases C decreases. ( as A> then C> and as B> then C<)

 

From this we can know that, when only B will exist separately; then property of B will be opposite to C. May be call that as D.

 

 

By this we can say A ≠ B or A is opposite to B.

 

(I have expected that, in mathematics this concept will definitely get a mathematical relation. If it is possible by any mathematician, then please give a mathematical relation to this concept. I think it may be possible by differentiation or integration.)

 

 

Here for an existence, you may consider any matter of solid, liquid and gas.

 

Then you have to consider

 

A = Particle of that matter and

 

B= Emptiness or space existed in that matter

 

 

In a volume of matter, as particles 'A' increases that's property, resistance for movement 'C' will increase. (As Particle >, resistance for movement >)

 

In a volume of matter, as emptiness 'B' increases then resistance for movement 'C' will decrease.

(As emptiness >, resistance for movement <)

 

 

 

(You can know this from my "Resistance for movement" and by "displacement of an existence for motion" prediction.)

 

 

Hence, when emptiness 'B' separately existed without particle 'A'. Then it will not have any resistance for movement. Or

 

A≠B and C ≠ D

 

Therefore I have said mass is opposite to emptiness and emptiness will not converted into mass.

 

In my paper I have perfectly said the property of space or emptiness ( i.e. Nil resistance property for motion).

 

First, any one has to be prove my predictions as wrong, before any one has to say my statement are wrong.

 

 

By the way,

 

1) Space has which property? And

2) what is space? According to you or according to your links.

 

And you have not given response for the my question to experts that, Does matter occupies space ( or emptiness) ?

 

Thank you

[URAIN]

My efforts (Actually it is not my effort. It is effort of great one.) related to removing misunderstanding from world about natural phenomena (matter not occupying space) is slowly getting the results in other science forum(s).

 

(In another forum I am discussing in main stream physics forum and some votes were came in against of established physics.)

 

In this forum also, it is (matter does not occupy space) accepted but members not showing interest for focusing on the truth and not showing interest to guide normal people of rest world.

 

 

(Therefore it is taking lot of time to cast vote in favor of truth, in the fallowing thread. link removed)

 

 

In this thread (speculation thread) already, by many ways I have explained about matter not occupying space.

 

But as per my commitment (to a respected member), I have explained this with my paper simple experiments and by my predictions in another thread.http://www.sciencefo...r/page__st__120 (139^th post).

 

But who are watching only this thread, they were missed that.

 

For those readers (who are watching only this thread) now I am explaining about matter not occupying space with combination of simple experiment and predictions.

 

In below figures, it is assumed that in 'Z' region pure empty space has existed. 'A' and 'B' are solid (rocks) existed in 'E' and 'F' region.

 

 

 

Established science says that empty space has the property of allowing itself to occupy by matter.

 

Therefore, when we place 'A' solid in 'Z' region, defender of established science says that 'Z' region empty space has occupied 'A' solid in it.

 

Hence they say empty space and 'A' solid both have existed in same Z region.

 

 

As per their argument, if empty space has existed in same Z region, then it must and should have "lets itself to be occupied by matter property" in it.

 

 

To test this, we try to put B solid in same Z region.

 

 

 

 

But it has not taken the Z region place.

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

By above statement defender of main stream science, differentiate space into

 

1) Occupied space

2) Unoccupied space.

 

In their view "occupied space" means 'A' solid existed Z region.

 

If we accept 'A' solid region as occupied space then,

 

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

 

Also, here we are not see space and matter as different existences. Here defender of established science is calling only one existence, with the name of "occupied space" and by name of 'A' solid.

It says that space and matter are both same existence and there is no difference in between them.

 

 

Secondly, when 'B' solid has not takes the place of same Z region, they defend this phenomenon as

 

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

 

When Z region will beunoccupied, then it will occupy B solid."

 

Here we have to think that,if any entity has any property, then that property must and should remain with that entity, in all conditions.

 

When B solid not takes the place of Z region (after putting A solid in it), then also if we accept space till existed in Z region, it implies that Z region space does not contain any property.

 

It is how scientific that considering an existence without any property?

In this world, is it really possible to exist any entity without any property? (Think a bit)

 

It is not possible. If we consider anything as an existence then it must and should contain some property and that property should remain same in all conditions with that entity.

 

I have given perfect definition about an existence and differentiation of two existences.

 

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

 

In a considered volume, if we see difference in average density, then they are separate existences.

 

According to this, it is not possible to say, space has existed in same Z region even after putting 'A' solid in it.

 

Because solids always have average density, greater than zero and the pure empty space has zero average density.

 

Greater than zero average density ≠ zero average density

 

Hence empty space (containing zero average density) will not exist in Z region after putting 'A' solid in it.

 

My first prediction also does not allow to say, space has existed in same Z region (even after putting 'A'solid in it).

 

My first prediction say's that "Resistance for movement of an existence is mainly depending on another existence density, which has existed in the direction of force."

 

According to this prediction, if space has existed in Z region, then it (space) must not show any resistance for B solids movement into Z region. B solid faced a high resistance means empty space has not existed in Z region, (after putting A solid in it).

 

Therefore only 'A' solid has existed in Z region.

 

Existence of only A solid in Z region is indication of displacement of empty space from Z region (which was previously existed in Z region).

 

My second prediction is based on this natural phenomena, that says

 

"An existence speed will be greater than zero, if and only, if it is capable to displace another existence which has existed in the direction of force."

 

 

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

 

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

 

}

 

 

 

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

 

Empty space has always zero average density. Therefore it is impossible to occupy it by any matter (or by more denser existence).

 

Always less denser existence displaced by movement of high denser existence.

 

In this universe a process is continuously running naturally. i.e.

 

Conversion of more denser existence into less denser existence (That is matter converting into energy.). In stars we can see this process.

 

By this process more denser existence, displacing the less denser existence to another region. It is making space of universe more wider.

 

This is the main reason for expansion of space.

 

{But Mr. Established science has lot of faith on his assistant. For this reason he is in illusion by thinking that dark matter and dark energy has existed in this universe and it is the reason for expansion of space.

 

Here I sadly say one thing that assistant of science misusing the faith of his boss and he is trying to become the boss of science.

 

He is ignoring the experimental tests and observations of reasoning.

 

I request to Mr. Mathematics, who is the assistant of science that, "please understand your limitation and must & should remain in your limitations, please". It will help to remove ignorance from the world. )

 

Dear readers,

 

primary requirement for movement of more denser existence is empty space. In this universe movement is taking place means empty space has existed in this universe and if you do experiments, then a more denser existence takes less time to displace empty space; comparing to any other denser existence.

(Every movement must need empty space for this, I have given example in previous post of this thread. i.e. when we place fuel containing formula one race car with it's champion driver in hole of ground, that will not move.)

This empty space has a specific size or volume and it has nil resistance property for a motion. Where matter also has it's own volume or space.Therefore when we place matter in empty space it will not occupy the empty space. It will be displaced to other region.

 

Therefore matter does not occupy the space other than it.

 

If you have understood this explanation then cast your vote on this thread.

 

link removed

 

Thank you.

Edited April 3, 2012 by hypervalent_iodine
Thread advertisement removed.

[URAIN]

Some thread links look like as advertising, some links (in other thread or in this thread) not looks as advertise.

 

Any way protecting the false part of established science is not a right thing.

 

 

Those who are interested to focus the truth, they will find my poll thread link by using this forum search engine (or they may found it in mainstream forum) and they will focus the truth by casting vote.

 

By the way, ignorance will not cover the truth for permanently.

 

It may take time, but truth will be accepted by everyone.

Edited April 3, 2012 by URAIN

[URAIN]

( Ved prakash I am giving reply openly on thread, because it will useful to all members.)

 

urain,i hope you are not sad with me, I AM NOT IGNORING YOUR THREAD BUT I AM NOT UNDERSTANDING IT.i hope your soul doesnt feel hurted, i hope you all the best.

 

Its OK and thank you.

 

I know including you anyone has not ignored this thread.

 

(If this thread has contained ignorable things then this thread was gone into trash can or this thread has been closed.)

 

This thread contains some thing opposite to established science. Therefore, honorable members hesitating to say anything authentically in favor of this thread. Because scientific community is a huge community and this forum and forum experts are only a part of that huge scientific community and no one member don't like to receive a certificate of science rival.

 

As per scientific method my idea has the predictions, which can be testable and observed. But forum members do not thinks themselves as an authorized person of huge scientific community. And they think authorized persons of community may only give a favor to new things of science with authentically.

 

you know that i dont have so much understanding. I am 16years old.

 

I think you haven't discussed this with your elders (Brother/sister, Father, Teacher, Friends). Discuss with them once.

 

i am also not able to understand some of your terms.

 

To understand this, you only give importance to the four things of this thread.

 

Science mainly give importance to theexperiments (At first I was used metaphysics principle. Hence that time it was not accepted).

 

If you do experiments or tests with these fallowing things, you definitely notice that matter does not occupy space,other than it.

 

(Any one, who accept the "experimental result as science" they will not say matter occupy space.)

 

Those four things are,

 

1) What is an existence? (How we have to consider a thing as an existence?)

 

A) Existence is the space or volume,which contain same average density.

 

 

2) How we have to differentiate separate existences?

 

A) Difference in average density, in a considered volume is the indication of separate existences.

 

 

3) My first prediction:

 

"Resistance for an existence movement is mainly depending on another existence density, which has existed in the direction of force or net force".

 

(Resistance to any movement is mainly depending on differences in between two existences densities.)

 

 

4) My second prediction:

 

"An existence speed will be greater than zero, if and only, if it is capable to displace another existence; which has existed in the direction of force or net force."

 

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

 

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

 

By testing these things only, you will know,

 

Does matter occupies space? or not?

 

(Those who would like to defend the "matter occupies space" they first have to disprove these four things. Then only any one can say matter occupies space.)

 

Thank you

 

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

 

Dear members,

 

About movement already Great Newton had given standard laws. My predictions also related to movement and this will not violate Newton's laws. Without violating Newton laws, my prediction is different than Newton's law.

 

For movement two things are must and should essential in this world. Those are,

 

1) Emptiness

2) Fullness or mass or force.

 

Newton laws gives importanceto the force and not consider the emptiness. Therefore the motion is called as inertia, which does not require external force to that's motion.

 

Importance of Newton law:

 

1) Newton laws say's which motion requires external force and which motion does not require external force.

 

By this way it differentiate motion into a)Inertial motion and b) Non Inertial motion

 

 

2) This Newton law says that the existences will be in rest, if total net force is equal to zero.

 

It is an indication of importance of force in Newton law.

 

 

Significance of my prediction:

 

1) But my predictions says motion may be anything (it may be inertial or non inertial) but that must be able to displace another existence, which has existed in the direction of force or net force.

 

This will not differentiate motion into inertial and non inertial. It gives only importance to capability of displacement of another existence in every motion.

 

 

(May be moving existence itself has the capability or external force give capacity to it. But common condition for both thing motion is displacement of another existence. .)

 

 

It perfectly says every motion (inertia and non inertia) of an existence is displacing another existence and without displacing another existence, an existence will not move in both condition of inertia and non inertia.

 

2) It says an existence will be at rest, only when it is incapable to displace another existence.

 

 

Thus my prediction gives importance to the emptiness of the world.

 

In this way Newton laws and my predictions are looks likedifferent. And these will not violet both one another.

 

********

 

Newton had said "Inertial motion" as natural phenomena.

 

But he had not said, Why it is a natural phenomena?

 

 

(Please don't understand that I am saying like I am superior than Newton.)

 

But my prediction gives reason to the natural phenomena of inertial motion.

(Inertial motion, which does not require external force for that's motion).

 

The reason is, "In almost cases, more denser existence displaces low level denser existences" and lowest level denser existence is empty space.

 

 

Because low level denser existence shows, less resistance to a motion; comparing to any more denser existence.

 

(Empty space shows nil resistance.)

 

 

Therefore "low level denser existence" does not shows high resistance to the movement of more denser existence's and simply it will displaces to another region.

 

 

Therefore anything which is in continuous motion,

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

 

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

 

It is the significance of emptiness in the motion.

 

 

(Do any one will help me to place these things in front of all scientific community?)

Edited April 10, 2012 by URAIN

[URAIN]

JohnStu thank you for focusing the truth. You have casted your vote in truth side in "Matter occupy space?" thread .

 

This will help the ordinary men of rest of the world, for deciding, which is the truth.

 

It was good, if you have given some response with that vote. Because, In that thread I had said that, I only submit my next post; if any one will given response.

Therefore I am wishing you, in this thread

 

(As per my commitment, in there I am unable to post and this thread also related to that thread. Hence I am wishing here.)

 

Any way thank you JohnStu, for your willingness of residing in side of truth.

 

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

 

Members may be expecting my posts in the thread "Ordinary man's attempt to explain GR"

 

But my post will not bring any change there. Because, only open minded people accept the truth.

 

In there, I have explained, how matter not occupies space; with standard testable predictions and testable definition of existence. But this scientific method also not making any change in the view of the member. The member is, neither rejecting my statements nor accepting. And he has not given answers to my questions.

 

Hence there is no, any use of convincing the person, who already taken a strong unchageble decision.

Edited April 14, 2012 by URAIN

[URAIN]

Dear members, I have requested in "matter occupy space?" thread that any one member (defender of established science) or expert of the forum, defend the established science by explaining 'how matter occupy space?'.

 

But I am disappointed. Because, no one member or expert is defending the belief of "matter occupy space". When people are unable to defend a scientific understanding with scientific method, then also, how people say matter occupy space? I do not understand it.

 

In this thread an expert (ajb) tried to defend the 'matter occupy space'. In defend, he had said that,

 

A lump of stuff has a physical volume that you can measure.

 

In continuation he says,

 

 

I am not sure if one can really say much more than this.

 

When an expert says like this, then I guess any one member will not defend the established science, more than this.

 

My paper does not have opposite opinion to ajb's opinion. But, why you give, a heading "matter occupy space" to this explanation?

 

In this explanation, we are not seeing the "space" the avoid of matter/energy.

 

Here expert (defender of established science) is saying only about the matter, like how it is?. That is,matter has the volume. Here respected expert not giving any relation to the matter and space.

 

To this explanation,why we have to give the heading, matter occupy space.

Simply we have to say every matter has its own volume (In my paper, I have also said same thing.)

 

Dear established science, you have given a heading as "matter occupy space" to this explanation. What is your intention behind this?

 

Do you have intention that, rest world or I have to take your explanation, as space is like a container and matter occupied this space?

 

If you have this intention behind your explanation, then say openly. Why you are hiding this?

 

Then you have to explain, what is the space? How it is?

 

But you are not explaining about this three dimensional space. Then also you expect that, we have to take this as matter has the volume in the container of space.

 

It is not a defending of "matter occupy space". It is only defending of how matter is? Every one knows this and I don't need this.

 

Hence now I am saying that, this forum members (who had cast their vote in favor of established science) and experts (defender of established science) are incapable to defend the established science.

 

Some say, to accept my prediction, I have some numerical predictions and error analysis and it is only modern physics.

 

Ok, I accept. I will not oppose this rule of modern physics. ( I have hope, in some time I will definitely give, what modern physics demand.)

 

But my problem is, according to this modern physics rule, by which law and by which numerical and error analysis you say matter occupy space (3 D space).

 

There may be no need to accept my predictions with authentically. But, in modern physics, why you accept, matter occupy space? Do you have accurate proof, evidence, or numerical prediction and error analysis about matter occupy space.

 

If you don't have these, then in modern physics, why you accept 'matter occupy space'. You have to declare it as only hypothesis of old physics.

 

Dear experts, I have given perfect definition about the existence. Do you not think, it will give perfect numerical prediction and error analysis.

 

That is, I have said space as zero average density existence and matter as greater than zero average density existence. By these anyone can know

 

 

1) Space and matter are different and they know, where is space, there is no matter and where is matter, there is no space.

 

2) By this any one can know space, zero density existence has its own volume and matter also has its own volume.

 

Then, how can any one say, one volume (matter) which is already existed, will require another volume (space) for its existence?

 

Matter does not need space for its existence. Without zero denser existence also greater than zero denser existence will be existed. Matter is not dependent of anything.

 

(It may be dependent of space for formation of different types of matter. i.e in solid empty space is less,in liquid it is more.)

 

Therefore matter does not occupy space, other than it. I know that you don't like to say this in out load. (You may fell in a big controversy.)

 

I have only used my part time in this work. I have not fully engaged in science field. I hope, in some time I will be able to give my full time to this work.

 

Actually I was expected a helping nature person through science forums. I remember one thing related to this. That is, when Mr. Bose works was not published in the standard journal,then he sent his papers directly to Mr Einstein and he has focused Mr. Bose work. I was also expected a great extraordinary person through the forums. But I have not got it.

 

Now I have intended to release these discussions and my paper to press of my area. By this I will try to find any defender of established science, who can defend established science by scientific method (with testing, experiments, not only by speaking on old beliefs) and by disproving my predictions and definition of existence.

 

Here I again request to the defender of established science that please defend matter occupy space with scientific method (with testing, experiments, not only by speaking on old beliefs) and by disproving my predictions and by disproving my definition of existence.

 

Definition of existence: A size or volume, which has same average density.

 

(In a considered volume if we observe different average density, then those are different existences.)

 

First prediction: Resistance to any motion is depending on another existence density which has existed in the direction of motion.

 

Second prediction: An existence speed will be greater than zero, if and only, if it is capable to displace another existence, which has existed in the direction of force or net force.

 

(Every motion is dependent on displacement of another existence, which has existed in the direction of force or net force.)

 

Anyone defender of established science disprove these above things by scientific method and defend the matter occupies space.

 

(May be thousand votes or countless votes come in favor of established science. But without defending established science with scientific method, those votes value will become a big zero.)

 

 

Thank you.

[Airbrush]

Hello Urain. I wish I could comment but it will take too long for me to read and understand your question. Can you condense your question into a few paragraphs?

 

I usually avoid complicated posts.

[URAIN]

Hello Urain. I wish I could comment but it will take too long for me to read and understand your question. Can you condense your question into a few paragraphs?

 

I usually avoid complicated posts.

 

Airbrush, there is no need to read all thread. Please take time for reading only 41 and 45 post of this thread. You will get full idea of this thread and give comment about it.

 

Thank you

 

 

[URAIN]

Dear members Greetings,

 

I was intended to post here, only after publishing it, in media. I was not known that "Physics today" does not publish original researches. They were given suggestion to contact the peer reviewed journal, for publishing original research. Now I have contacted a peer review journal.

 

Publishing in journal takes some time. But I felt that posting my progress in this forum is necessary. Because, I have seen that members and experts were unable to take decision about the space. I have hope that it may help them to take the decision about space.

 

While writing the paper "Understanding Universe with URAIN" I was had some new idea. That was expressed through the simple experiments and Prem Parvathi Principle.

 

But as per experts, I was not followed scientific method. In this forum members said that it is compulsory to give testable prediction to say anything in the physics.

 

 

Then I was fulfilled this demand by giving predictions. At the starting, the members, those who were shown strong oppositionto me; were not supported me, when I fulfilled demand of scientific method. (Only one member indirectly said that now you have to go the lab for quantitative predictions).

 

(There is no necessity of supporting the truth.Truth will be truth any one support it or not. It will not change. Because, truth is changeless.)

 

 

Then after in personnel conversation one another member (moderator) said that mathematics or formulating the theory is compulsory in the modern physics. (I was not rejected this. I was said that I will fulfill demand of modern physics.)

 

At the starting I was criticized for the reason of my Prem Parvathi Principle. Members were said yours is not science. Yours is only philosophy.

 

Even one member (expert) has written a blog article by heading "Metaphysics is not a science".

 

 

Dear Members, I accept "Metaphysics is not ascience". But every one has to know that it is more than science. Because,

WHEN SCIENCE STOPS TO WORK, METAPHYSICS START TO THINK.

 

(I intended to write a funny, but reality article about it. I hope, I will intimate you, when I will write this.)

Science and metaphysics are two paths, which meet to the truth.

 

 

Metaphysics is not science. But,

 

Metaphysics is KNOWING the truth.

Science is SHOWING the truth.

(But Mathematics is helping truth and it also spreading ignorance.)

I will not say you, for considering metaphysics as science. But you have to must aware that metaphysics guides the science.

 

 

Prem Parvathi principle states that "NOTHING HAS NEVER EXISTED AT ANY TIME".

 

By GOD grace, now I am able to show this principle in formula.

 

 

Prem Parvathi Principle in formula:

Now science, scientific people consider the region of void of matter/energy as NOTHING. Because 'nothing' means zero or not existence of anything. They consider density as something and consider nil density as nothing.

 

This void of matter/energy or space has existed in this universe. By calling emptiness as NOTHING, they indirectly spreading ignorance or misleading ordinary people, as

NOTHING ALSO HAS EXISTED IN THIS UNIVERSE.

 

(In their view, nothing=space,and it has existed.).

 

1) Now we will see it in formula.

 

I classify whole universe existences in two types 1)Empty existence 2) Filled existence.

 

 

Then, whole universe volume V= Ev + Fv.

 

(Ev=volume/size of empty existence, Fv=volume/size of filled existence)

 

You have already known my definition about Empty existence and Filled existence.

 

Dear science experts, you call zero as nothing. I accept zero is nothing. But in above formula V ≠ 0, when void of matter/energy has existed at a region.

 

 

According to my definitions, in emptiness Fv= 0, but till it contains some Ev size (volume/size of empty existence)

 

For this reason, total volume V ≠ 0.

 

Hence region of void of matter/energy is not a nothing or not a "not existence".

 

In formula, nothing or zero is only possible when Ev=Fv=0,

 

Then only total Volume V= 0.

 

 

Prem Parvathi Principle says, it is (Ev=Fv=0) real nothing and it has not existed in any time.

 

 

Because, main property of an existence is size/volume. If aforesaid any entity does not contain it, then that will be understood as nothing or not existence.

 

Hence I request to the science related persons, that don't call the region of void of matter/energy as nothing or not existence. If you call this as nothing, then it will show your irresponsibility towards spreading true knowledge.

 

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

 

Now question will arise, that how we confirm that empty space has existed in this universe or what is evidence for it?

 

For this we will see next formula, based on my first prediction.

 

 

2) Second formula is based on, my first prediction.i.e.

 

 

"Resistance to any existence motion is mainly depending on another existence density, which has existed in the direction of force or net force."

 

Formula for this is,

 

RV1=DV2

 

(RV1= Resistance to motion of V1, DV2 = Density ofV2)

 

It is perfect formula for inertia. If V1, V2 not look likes inertia then here is a condition that V2 is relatively less moving or constant as compared to the V1.

 

It will be used to know different density of V2. In test V1 and force applied on it to be same. But its speed will be tested in different V2 of same content like h2o. That is ice, water and steam.

 

In these tests as all three V2 have same content. But as density of V2 decreases, speed of V1 increases. Means resistance to motion of V1 will decrease.

 

If we think reason for this, then we will know that as density decreases, in different V2's, then intermolecular space in between molecules increases. By this we will know existence of emptiness and its property of "showing nil resistance to motion of an existence".

 

 

By this test we will confirm, correctness of first formula V=Ev+Fv i.e. Presence of emptiness and fullness in an entity.

 

(Existence of empty space in matter may also know by considering the particle of solid, liquid and gas as V1. When will we see different matters with advanced instruments, then we notice that V1 will moves where less or nil density has existed. That nil density is empty space.)

 

 

3) Third formula is based on my second prediction.i.e.

 

"Every movement is depending on displacement of another existence, which has existed in the direction of force or net force".

 

Formula for this is,

 

mV1=SV2

 

((mV1= movement of volume of first existence, SV2=displacement of volume of another existence)

 

This formula says, motion of V1 is directly depending on displacement of V2, existed in the direction of force/net force.Means as V1 will move V2 displace.

 

By second formula, already we know that a volume is combination of empty existence and filled existence's volume/size. Hence as whole V2 displaces, its content empty space also displaces with it, to other region. In case, if V2 contain only Ev (empty existence size/volume) then also that displaces to other region, for the reason of nil density.

Hence, space is not fixed like a container.

 

Space and filled existence are separate existences.

 

Space is not compulsory for survival of filled existence.

 

Therefore matter does not occupy empty space. (It may contain space in it.)

 

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

 

I have discussed expansion of space in my paper. Now from these formula, I will describe, how expansion space is happening in this universe and what is reason for this?

 

My first formula is,

 

Total V=Ev + Fv

 

Now there is a formula in established science. i.e.D=M/V then V=M/D .

 

V=M/D, is only formula for filled existence. Because,in formula, if D=0, then V =0. But in nature without density also volume/ size (space) has existed. Hence it is formula for only volume of filled existence.

 

Now we will put this formula in (1), then

 

 

Total V=Ev+M/D

 

In this formula as D decreases total volume increases. Same this phenomena is continuously running in nature in STARS. That is matter converting into energy. OR High density existence is converting into less density existence. By this phenomena, whole volume of universe isincreasing in high rate.

 

Hence volume increasing or space expansion is directly proportional to decrease in density of universe.

 

(Is there any broad minded person has existed, in this forum who can give response to it?

 

If any one will not given response, I think, I willdirectly post, may be, my last post after publishing this in journal.

My future projects: Time, Origin of universe,Neutron, Reincarnation.)

 

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

 

Dear members,

 

I may faced some bad experience at the end stage of my discussion with forum experts. But discussion with the experts has given perfection to my assumptions, which I was had at the joining of this forum.

 

In this forum, I was met experts of different countries and was known their views and current established science view by them. It was helped me a lot. For this I am grateful to internet technology, to this forum, admin of forum, experts of forum and members of this forum.

 

Kindly receive my gratitude.

 

Let we will proceed this world in the path of enlighten. For this I expect your cooperation in future.

 

Once again thanks to all of you.

 

With Pure LOVE, With True LOVE,

 

Yours

 

URAIN

 

(U R ALL I am NOT)

Edited July 3, 2012 by URAIN

[URAIN]

Dear friends it is immense pleasure to share a news with you. As you know, I am working from many years to get a consensus about space. Proving "matter does not occupy space" is my first preference ("Matter occupies space" statement comes in authentic established science definition of matter) . When I have said it then everybody opposed to this.

Now it is not getting any opposition. Else some people, in other way are trying to say matter not occupies space

(Member of other forum has said that matter does not occupy space, in terms of Cartesian co ordinates. I don't know more about it.

Some big people like "Mark aron simpson" chairman of string theory research team also has said that matter does not occupy space. When I discussed with him. But he has said that matter is part of space. I opposed this thing. Because my views are different.)

Its OK.

Now my article is accepted for ISC2012 international space conference 2012 held in Ahmedabad Gujarat INDIA, held on November 30 to Dec1 2012.

(Please you may see attachments.)

Now science world is taking my argument seriously.

In this situation I convey my gratitude to the this forum and members who were participated in this discussion.

Dear friends once again thank you very much

 

URAIN

(Suryanarayan G Chimmanchodker SEDAM)

 

notification letter.pdf (266.48K)

 

ISC2012_Brochure.pdf (268.65K)

My abstract which is sent to the conference

In the established science, there is no consensus about how space is to be defined. Under different circumstances, it is perceived as a) "Not existence" (absolute nothing), b] Existence and empty (a void), c) Existence effervescing with virtual particles, and by matter occupies space statement also, space is oftentimes understood as d) being fixed and unvarying as if a container.

A rule of Nature states that "resistance to the motion of an existence is mainly depending upon the density of another existence, which exists along the direction of the motion's force/net force".

Therefore, an existence (an object or its absence) moves towards coordinates of lesser (or nil) resistance. Emptiness is a cause for less (or nil) resistance to the motion. Hence motion of matter, proves existence of emptiness.

Thus 1) Space is an existence and empty.

This space has its own size/volume. For this reason, matter will not occupy space, rather it displaces space. Therefore, movement of a matter displaces space to another region.

2) Therefore space is not fixed like a container and it is also movable.

Volume of an existence is depending on density of same existence (V=M/D). If density decreases, then the volume of same existence increases. In stars, conversion of matter into energy is continuously going on. For this reason, the density of the universe is decreasing.

 

3) This decrease in density of universe is a possible reason for the expansion of space.