Matter Occupies Space ?

[matterdoc]

Matter is the substance that provides objective reality all physical bodies. A real object has to exist. In order to make existence a reality there has to be certain place for its existence.

Space is a functional entity, presupposed by rational beings, whenever they envisage matter-bodies. It is container without form or limits. It is there because of our inability to consider a content without a container. Space has no form or structure. Its only function is to provide a place for the existence of matter bodies.

[kowalskil]

This must be a trick question. <_<

 

Yes, it is tricky because terms like matter,space and occupation mean different thing to different people.

 

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

.

[URAIN]

Dear Members and Dear Craig D

 

When I was became member of this forum, at first I was started the thread http://scienceforums.com/topic/23895-do-you-think-law-of-conservation-has-limitations/page__gopid__3095 “Do you think law of conservation energy has limitations”. Before starting this thread, I had a thinking that law of conservation has some limitations and this limitation will be fulfilled by P.P. principle theory and this principle will give the ‘base’ for law.

 

Hence before introduction of P.P.principle, I had started this thread to know that,

 

Does anyone think that Law of conservation energy has some limitations?

 

If anyone thinks, then what is the remedy for this ?

 

When I was started this ( matter occupy space?) thread, then also, I had same reason, behind it. I tried to know, does any one will support me by saying that matter does not occupy space? But I have not seen this answer in this discussion.

 

When I was in degree, I was preparing to a science essay competition. To make preparation while I was studying the science books, I was shocked and I was very excited. I am uncontrolled for a while. As like “Eureka”. Because then it was flashed to me that “Matter will not occupy the space”.

 

Although I had some confusions and I hadn’t had full perfect understanding about the space and matter.

 

And forums like this, was not came to my knowledge. (Else I was shared this, with world at that time.) Hence I postponed this matter to future and I had planned to make this as my Phd subject.

 

But unfortunately I was not continued the study.

 

Dear Craig D and all members.

 

By starting this thread I was tried know that any one’s thinking will support to my view and I was expected that this support will give me the perfect understanding. But it is not happened.

 

Now I am perfect in my understanding and I would like to put this, in front of world.

 

This is a nice forum. I have discussed my theory http://scienceforums.com/topic/24079-natural-phenomena-for-conservation-and-invariance/ in this forum. For this I am thankful to all staff of the forum.

 

In discussion of theory any fallacy hadn’t found (about the theory). But then also it is not reached to all interested (philosophy of science) people.

 

Hence Craig D, I am intended to publish my ‘space and matter’ thinking by a journal. Because it will reach all over the world. When I was in college, I had a wish to make Phd. But that is not fulfilled. If it will publish by renowned Journal. Then I will satisfy myself.

 

In thread http://scienceforums.com/topic/24230-is-there-any-science-consensus-about-origin-of-universe/ you have guided me about sharing knowledge through media (journal). Your guidance shows that you have a good intention. Your encouragement confirms that you accept the growth of other persons also.

 

I have planned to share this with two persons. One with you, and second with other person from other side.

 

I have expectation from you, that you will give a good finishing touch ( Good finishing of language, writing technique, and mathematics if it needed) to my writings and make it to be published by journal.

 

( Journal also do this but I am not popular person. I have not well qualified. Hence there is chance of neglecting my writings. I am contacting you because, I don’t like to take any chance.)

 

Now in world wide there is only one thinking that ‘Matter occupy space’. In every school it is taught that matter occupy the space.

 

But in reality matter will not occupy space and I would like to send this message and knowledge to all peoples.

 

For this, journal is a good media and it will reach most of peoples.

(Please don’t misunderstand that this forum has been neglected.)

 

Craig D I request you, please co operate with me for publishing my writing with journal.

 

In my writing, it include matter not occupies space and a reason for present most discussed phenomena of world. First I will send it to you. After your response I will share other things.

 

Craig D, please accept my request.

 

If publishing with journal is like, a submitting paper for phd thesis. Then, I think you are a guide for this phd.

 

Dear members, I will request you for waiting for some time. Your curiosity will be ended as early as possible and it will be discussed in this forum also.

 

Thank you all members

 

Thank you Craig.

[URAIN]

Dear friends,

 

No one given response to my help request. It's OK

 

I have independently contacted a publication for publishing my writings. In reply they said that due to huge volume of articles, they need three months to give response for my proposal.

 

Hence I have decided to publish my writings in the blog http://spaceandconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/hello-world/

Edited February 18, 2012 by URAIN

[sigurdV]

Are you saying that electron has the mass and occupies space and electron is also a matter? What about neutron ?

 

Electron comes under which type of matter ? (is it comes under plasma state?)

 

Matter is Energy, they say... Perhaps your question is how Energy and Space are related, and if one can exist without the other?

[URAIN]

Matter is Energy, they say... Perhaps your question is how Energy and Space are related, and if one can exist without the other?

 

Wait sigurdV,

 

Wait for only one day.

 

I think this question will not needed tommorow, yourself you will get answer by reading my papers.

 

Till 48 hours left, for ending complete spatial and special day.

 

(edit)

 

sigurdV I am watching who will first cast their vote for NO. I will not force anyone or you for casting vote for No.

 

If 'truth' exist in my writings and if you or members with truth side then 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 truth side,

 

then majority of vote will decide the truth.

 

 

 

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

Edited February 19, 2012 by URAIN

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

matter displaces matter. space is the sum of displaceable matter....what lies outside that I do not know nor (I'm fairly certain) does anyone else.

Edited February 19, 2012 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[URAIN]

Now I have released my papers on blog http://spaceandconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/space-and-consensus/

 

Please cast your vote to the poll and focus on the truth.

[Guest MacPhee]

"Space" is really just a hifalutin word for the "gap" between two things.

So instead of asking: "Does Matter Occupy Space?", we could ask: "Does Matter Occupy Gap?".

 

Would this lead to discussions about the properties of "Gap"? Such as whether "Gap" is curved? Or the properties of "Gaptime"?

 

Probably not, because "Gap" doesn't have resonance of the word "Space". When "Space" is used to form a compound like "Spacetime", the result looks impressive - intriguing and mystical. Whereas "Gaptime" just sounds plain daft.

 

"Spacetime" may be just as daft an idea - but it sounds so much better! Such seemingly inconsequential linguistic quirks, have IMHO, deeply influenced scientific thought over the ages.

[URAIN]

"Space" is really just a hifalutin word for the "gap" between two things.

So instead of asking: "Does Matter Occupy Space?", we could ask: "Does Matter Occupy Gap?".

 

Would this lead to discussions about the properties of "Gap"? Such as whether "Gap" is curved? Or the properties of "Gaptime"?

 

Probably not, because "Gap" doesn't have resonance of the word "Space". When "Space" is used to form a compound like "Spacetime", the result looks impressive - intriguing and mystical. Whereas "Gaptime" just sounds plain daft.

 

"Spacetime" may be just as daft an idea - but it sounds so much better! Such seemingly inconsequential linguistic quirks, have IMHO, deeply influenced scientific thought over the ages.

 

 

After all, what you say? Does matter occupy space or Not?

[Guest MacPhee]

After all, what you say? Does matter occupy space or Not?

 

Urain, your question is deep. Please forgive me, for looking at it, only very simply. I'm thinking - suppose there are two things, call them A and B. They are in contact with each other - like AB.

 

Then they move apart. So they are now like A B. Separated by a distance.

 

Suppose we give this distance a name - we call it "Space". That makes us think that "Space" is also a thing. And then we ask, what properties does this thing "Space" have? What's its structure -can it be occupied by matter? Does matter affect it, eg, by distorting it?

 

But there isn't really any thing "Space". There's just distance - which means, how far things are from each other. Can "from" have a structure? Can "from" be occupied?

Edited February 21, 2012 by MacPhee

[freeztar]

Urain, your question is deep. Please forgive me, for looking at it, only very simply. I'm thinking - suppose there are two things, call them A and B. They are in contact with each other - like AB.

 

Then they move apart. So they are now like A B. Separated by a distance.

 

Suppose we give this distance a name - we call it "Space". That makes us think that "Space" is also a thing. And then we ask, what properties does this thing "Space" have? What's its structure -can it be occupied by matter? Does matter affect it, eg, by distorting it?

 

But there isn't really any thing "Space". There's just distance - which means, how far things are from each other. Can "from" have a structure? Can "from" be occupied?

 

Great thoughts...But think about this...

 

We can look at space as merely the distance between macroscopic objects, but what about the substances therein? Even in the most disparate reaches of the universe, there exists electromagnetic energy. As we know, energy is equivalent to mass. Hence, the universe has a pervasive mass about it.

 

We can always shrink the distances between particles until there is only "space". And then we have to define it...and that's what you're getting at, right? ;)

 

The problem I have with defining space as a relative distance is that it is just that...a relative distance.

Space is time-dependant...

 

Think about that for a while...;)

[URAIN]

Urain, your question is deep. Please forgive me, for looking at it, only very simply. I'm thinking - suppose there are two things, call them A and B. They are in contact with each other - like AB.

 

Then they move apart. So they are now like A B. Separated by a distance.

 

Suppose we give this distance a name - we call it "Space". That makes us think that "Space" is also a thing. And then we ask, what properties does this thing "Space" have? What's its structure -can it be occupied by matter? Does matter affect it, eg, by distorting it?

 

But there isn't really any thing "Space". There's just distance - which means, how far things are from each other. Can "from" have a structure? Can "from" be occupied?

 

MacPhee did you have not read my above posts?

 

May be you read but ignored.

 

You have asked,

 

What property does this space have?

 

What is its structure?

 

Does matter effect it?

 

If you had read the my paper on http://spaceandconsensus.wordpress.com then definitely you had not asked these question.

 

Why any one is not believing me?

 

I asked for help for publishing it through by any standard publication then also anyone has not given

 

response to me. Because they not believe me.

 

Dear MacPhee you also may be not believe,

 

what will be wrong if you read my paper? OR

 

what will you lost from reading my paper ?

 

Think a bit.

 

 

 

Matter does not occupy space,

 

Forget, matter occupy space

 

it's not occupy space, other than it.

 

 

Dear Gentle men, Matter does not occupy space.

 

How can I tell you. It is truth,

 

It is natural phenomena that matter does not occupy space.

 

(It is enough. you have to think again, by reading my

 

paper Does matter occupy space.)

 

 

I may cast VOTE for NO. But I feel, accepting other people more important than myself saying no. Because it's my paper, and anyone may say

 

URAIN is doing partiality in saying truth.

 

Please take it seriously, really matter not occupy space.

 

Matter occupy space, only its own space.

 

Matter not occupy space, other than it.

 

(If you have any question, read paper. I hope after reading, question will be solved.

 

If then also it is not solved then ask question here.)

Edited February 22, 2012 by URAIN

[URAIN]

My paper is open on internet and before, how matter not occupy space, I will give predictions of this paper.

 

In science there is a saying that

 

 

"A good idea need only be testable. It can be bad idea, but if it is testable then it is science."

 

Hence before explaining, how matter not occupy space,

 

I will give predictions of my paper. From which, you can observe and test the natural phenomena.

 

Predictions:

 

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 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 shows any resistance, for movement all other denser existence.

 

 

2) If density level of two existences is same, then resistance is mainly depending on density level of two existences

 

a) More denser existence shows, higher resistance for movement of more denser existence.

 

b. Less denser existence shows, less resistance for movement of less denser existence.

 

 

 

 

Till now, different people have different opinions about space. As like...

 

a) Space as a notion

b. Space as a existence

c) Space as a filled existence

d) Space as an empty existence

 

 

 

But my paper gives full stop to all confusions and give consensus about the space. It says space (avoid of matter/energy) is a existence and it is empty. (It is empty, only when we compare it with other filled things. Otherwise it is pure nonperishable space, which is an existence.).

 

I hope forum experts, will receive this message and will give their comment about this.

[URAIN]

A forum must have some responsible persons, who thinks, it's their duty to give response.

[URAIN]

My another prediction which directly related to the space. This prediction says that “every motion (of an existence) is mainly dependent on displacement of another existence”.

 

Before saying specific prediction, I will answer to these fallowing normally asked questions.

 

Q. Which is an existence?

 

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

(The size may contain "same nil average 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.

 

 

Prediction:

 

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).

 

 

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.

 

Normally in every movement, low level denser existence (or nil density existence) has displaced by denser existence.

 

(For ex: Suppose if any one observing that a particles of liquid is moving in a direction, then it is displacing another low level density existence, which has existed in between particle and force.

 

That low level denser existence may be space.

Because it has some space but it’s density compared to particle is very less i.e nil density. And it is familiar that in water, movement of particle is high. when same water condensed, it will form solid. Then movement of particle in that solid will be less. Because space in between particle is very less.)

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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 as compared to any other denser existence.

 

Because resistance for any entities movement is mainly depending on, another existence density. (This is the first prediction and any may test this.)

 

But space 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 as compared to any other denser 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 for its survival, in this universe.

 

Hence space is different than the matter.

 

(Emptiness is different than same denser existence.)

 

Matter not occupies space, other than it

 

Denser existence is independent of space.

 

Hence denser existence not require space for it's existence.

Edited March 20, 2012 by URAIN

[sigurdV]

Hi Urain! Ive been busy not visiting, but I felt I should come adding my vote. Its a "no" and my motivation is:

Since matter cant be removed from space it never occupied it