Matter Occupies Space ?

[URAIN]

Another thing to question, is how dimensionless objects actually occupy space which has dimensions... a peculiar thought.

 

Aethelwulf welcome to the discussion.

 

Aethelwulf actually I am not understanding that, to my which point you are responding.

 

From years I am arguing that matter (filled existence) does not occupy space. You may read full discussion and see what other members had said and what I have said.

 

Please once again particularly say (mention) that to my which point you are responding?

[Aethelwulf]

What I am saying is this:

 

Particles don't occupy your normal contraints having dimensions. Dimensions are things with a width at least. Particles don't have this property according to current belief, so how can particles actually occupy a ''space'' in the conventional terms?

 

Take the mass of the Earth for instance, you can actually squeeze all the mass of the earth into a matchbox! What does that tell you about how particles occupy spacetime?

 

In fact, we often told that particles once occupied a single ''point'' in our universes history called the Big Bang... only since then, has it been diluted over time as space increased and expanded. Matter itself is said to only cover about 1% of space itself, but a dichotomy arises, since when we speak of space, we think of the conventional three dimensions our brain is accustomed to... however... particles don't have dimensions nor do they actually have exact positions. They are just fleeting distortions of the fabric itself.

[URAIN]

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

 

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

.

 

Aethelwulf, I was started this thread by having doubt about established science statement "Matter occupies space". When I asked this question, people said that, this is so silly question. I have faced so much opposition and people were rediculed on me (see one example, above Ludwik quote). You have to look whole thread once.

 

When I had started this thread then, I was had opinion that matter has its own volume and space also has its own size or volume. Hence where ever matter moves it occupies its own volume else it will not occupy other existence like empty space volume/size.

 

 

Therefore matter does not occupy space.

 

But I faced difficulty to prove this. Now I have proved this (matter does not occupy space) by my testable predictions and formulas.

 

But in every school of world only it is teaching that matter occupies space. Because matter definition says that matter is that which has the mass and occupies space.

 

Hence world was misunderstood (and now also misunderstanding) that matter occupies space, and space is like a fixed container.

 

I would like to remove this misunderstanding of "matter occupies space" from the world.

 

Now you also supporting me by saying "matter does not occupy space". Thanks for supporting.

 

What you say about my conclusions and about my formulas.

 

Other thing is, till now world understood that dark matter, dark energy is the reason for expansion of space. I will not comment about this understanding.

 

But I have given formula, for reason for expansion of space. V=Ev+M/D, i.e. decrease in the density of universe's mass is reason for expansion of space.

 

(Matter or mass continously converting into energy in the stars. By this phenomena density of universe decreasing and volume of universe increasing. It is the space expansion.)

 

What you say about this reason?

[Aethelwulf]

Aethelwulf, I was started this thread by having doubt about established science statement "Matter occupies space". When I asked this question, people said that, this is so silly question. I have faced so much opposition and people were rediculed on me (see one example, above Ludwik quote). You have to look whole thread once.

 

When I had started this thread then, I was had opinion that matter has its own volume and space also has its own size or volume. Hence where ever matter moves it occupies its own volume else it will not occupy other existence like empty space volume/size.

 

 

Therefore matter does not occupy space.

 

But I faced difficulty to prove this. Now I have proved this (matter does not occupy space) by my testable predictions and formulas.

 

But in every school of world only it is teaching that matter occupies space. Because matter definition says that matter is that which has the mass and occupies space.

 

Hence world was misunderstood (and now also misunderstanding) that matter occupies space, and space is like a fixed container.

 

I would like to remove this misunderstanding of "matter occupies space" from the world.

 

Now you also supporting me by saying "matter does not occupy space". Thanks for supporting.

 

What you say about my conclusions and about my formulas.

 

Other thing is, till now world understood that dark matter, dark energy is the reason for expansion of space. I will not comment about this understanding.

 

But I have given formula, for reason for expansion of space. V=Ev+M/D, i.e. decrease in the density of universe's mass is reason for expansion of space.

 

(Matter or mass continously converting into energy in the stars. By this phenomena density of universe decreasing and volume of universe increasing. It is the space expansion.)

 

What you say about this reason?

 

I'd say, whoever told you that matter occupies a volume are fundamentally wrong, at least within the current belief-system. There is such a thing as a classical

approach. The electron for instance can be modelled as a sphere - this is called the classical electron.

 

But as far as our experimental evidence points to, electrons behave as point like particles. They have no dimensions - no width or any type of volume. How do you quantify matter filling a space when they don't even encompass the usual dimensions we associate to the Cartesian coordinate system [math](x,y,x)[/math]?

Edited July 26, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[URAIN]

I'd say, whoever told you that matter occupies a volume are fundamentally wrong, at least within the current belief-system. There is such a thing as a classical

approach. The electron for instance can be modelled as a sphere - this is called the classical electron.

 

But as far as our experimental evidence points to, electrons behave as point like particles. They have no dimensions - no width or any type of volume. How do you quantify matter filling a space when they don't even encompass the usual dimensions we associate to the Cartesian coordinate system [math](x,y,x)[/math]?

 

I don't know, what is your intention here? I don't know, what you would like to prove here? If you were presented your argument to support "matter occupies space" idea then I may opposed to you.

 

You know that my view and your view are same then also you are in a mood of fight (with me).

 

You have to give these explantions to those people who had cast their vote in favor of "matter occupies space". You have to say these things to teacher of the every school who are teaching that matter occupies space.

 

Last one thing, at starting of discussion if people were accepted that matter does not occupy space, then this discussion was not continued in this way. That was stopped only in that time.

 

I have not discussed only on this forum. I have discussed in other forum also. And people who were came to discussion were said in favor of matter occupy space. Once see fallowing links

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60496-matter-occupies-space/

 

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111013045744AAgTLHf

[Aethelwulf]

If the question, does matter exist inside spacetime, I'd happily reply ''yes.'' If the question was, ''does matter occupy the dimensions of space...'' I'd be hesitant.

[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.

 

Its OK.

 

Now I have got a science stage to share directly my idea with scientific world.

 

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

 

with regards

 

URAIN

 

(Suryanarayan G Chimmanchodker SEDAM)

 

fallowing are attachment related to my article selection and about the conference.

notification letter.pdf

 

ISC2012_Brochure.pdf

 

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.

[pljames]

Space is empty. Definition of matter says that, matter is that which has the mass and which occupies space. I have dont make any sense about matter occupying space.For occupying space, it has condition that two matter do not occupy same space at same time.

While matter exist even the place is not empty. For example in water container, a solid matter occupy space. Therefore what is meant by matter occupies space?

 

URAIN,

To me atoms and protons occupy space but some matter moves some don't. As for the same space and same time individual atoms I believe can occupy space at the same time. Since matter seems to be moving how can it not be crashing into others non moving atoms? Space is a dimension without form and mass. Atoms occupy space. my thoughts only. Yours please. pljames

[arkain101]

It is entirely relative to the level of truth we are talking about here.

 

Perspective of a photon is an entirely different perspective of a human eye viewing the world in the macroscopic sense.

 

Mental Concepts are all we have. So we must break them down and understand them at the fundamental elements relative to the fundamental level they are dealing with to provide the answer we are seeking most deeply.

Edited August 18, 2013 by arkain101

[LaurieAG]

Perspective of a photon is an entirely different perspective of a human eye viewing the world in the macroscopic sense.

 

Good point Arkain101,

 

The common point between human perception and the quantum world is the point where the photons are captured and the type of lenses involved in that capture.

 

This is the physical reference point between both worlds and the correct context should be used or conflation is the result.