Vacua

[Roger Munday]

To all, I looked online (again) for physics forums and there are still hundreds available. Obviously not one of these collective entities has an answer to the transmission of forces, either between those acting on us human entities, or acting between stars, planets or moons. The generally assumed force of 'gravity' in all these forums is assumed to act within essentially vacuous "spaces" between these massive physical entities. In other words theoretical physics is generally based on the "existence" of interplanetary and interatomic vacua. It is a simple fact (to me at least) that such a hypothetically vacuous universe is the epitome of absurdity. Regards, Roger Munday

[matterdoc]

Sir,

Force is the rate of work done with respect to the displacement. It is a mathematical relation and not a real entity that can neither act nor be acted upon. F=W/d. Hence, it is the work that is transmitted and not the force. [Energy is an undefined imaginary entity]. Work associated with a body may be transferred to be in association with another body.

An external agency applies gravitational pressure to a 3D material body. This agency (the universal medium) is also a material entity that fills the entire space outside the most basic 3D matter particles. There is no vacuum anywhere.

Yes. The existence of a vacuum and action at a distance through empty space are absurdities in modern physics. See. http://vixra.org/pdf/1111.0104v2.pdf

Nainan.   www.matterdoc.info 

[Roger Munday]

Nainan,

You say:-

"The existence of a vacuum and action at a distance through empty space are absurdities in modern physics."

Agreed, the only material entities which ultimately and continuously  exist are atoms.

Roger Munday

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to npa-relativit...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/f7714ee3-5ead-4a9c-adb7-2582557c343an%40googlegroups.com.

[John-Erik Persson]

The existence of a vacuum and action at a distance through empty space are absurdities in modern physics.

Nainan

I agree

In 1905 Einstein invented (not discovered) a new interpretation of an erratic idea from 1887. In that year an early invention was done by the introduction of the absurd GAMMA factor based on the idea that transverse ether wind could delay light propagation. This was in conflict with the wave model stating that ether wind falling inside the wave front cannot tilt the same wave front. So, we got the absurd Lorentz transform that ruined physics.

The illusion of action at a distance is explainable only if we introduce an ether, since the ether can cause the force of gravity to emerge inside matter.

John-Erik

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwdTbhG0t%2B0hZtQHhk-vcfdpLK9k5Yq_TbYuQUTKngU2eA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Munday]

To all,

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/135438-question-about-matter-and-space-time/

"The volume of an individual atom remains the same regardless of whether it is in the solid, liquid or gas state, but the apparent volume of the substance changes due to the different spacing between atoms in each phase; meaning, atoms in a gas have much more space between them, leading to a larger overall volume compared to the same number of atoms in a solid or liquid state where they are tightly packed together."

This is what you all believe and base your stupid "vacuous" theories upon.

You cannot consider that it is the progressive expansions (and contractions) of individual atoms which result in the observed and progressive expansions (and contractions) of matter.

And that it is the individual mass densities of atoms that increase exponentially to their central cores.

And that no hypothetical, interatomic vacuous/ethereal "empty space" "exists".

You live in a "kinetic" past.

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CAECQJUDQahZT5zDWWXs4LY3RON%2BFEXxCjGUrsHCY5cPVSm7tAw%40mail.gmail.com.

[matterdoc]

Sir,

The universal medium fills the entire space outside the most basic 3D matter particles, the 3D matter cores of photons (corpuscles of radiation). The radial sizes of all photons are the same and constant. Two complementary photons moving in a common circular path about a common centre form a biton. Bitons are the most stable subatomic particles. They are also sensitive to external pressure from the surrounding universal medium. The radial size of a biton depends on the external pressure on it. As the external pressure on a biton increases, its radial size increases, and the 3D matter contents of constituent photons reduce. This is the heating process. Similarly, as the external pressure on a biton reduces, its radial size reduces, and the 3D matter content of its constituent photons increases. This is a cooling process. In free space, a biton will be the smallest and will have the highest 3D matter content.

Bitons in different combinations form all superior 3D matter particles, atoms, etc. The progressive expansion of a physical object begins at the level of its constituent bitons. As the 3D matter density of a body reduces (increasing external pressure – heating) it expands. As the 3D matter density of a body increases (reducing external pressure – cooling) it shrinks. Exceptions found in certain materials are due to their molecular arrangements.

Spaces between photons of a biton, between bitons of superior subatomic particles, between atoms, between molecules, etc. are all filled with the universal medium formed by material substance. There is no empty (void) space anywhere in the universe.

The volumes of atoms and interatomic distances in the gaseous state are greater than those in the liquid state and greater than those in the solid state.

The book ‘MATTER (Re-examined)’ describes simple and logical mechanisms to validate all the above statements on the basis of a single assumption that the matter exists.

Nainan.                  www.matterdoc.info 

[Roger Munday]

Electron microscope images of a wire of continuous gold atoms, as it is physically drawn out between two gold particles.

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/3fb1f48b-6e17-4494-bb6b-b28b530c37a9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Franklin Hu]

Nainan,

That's very eloquent to be making up biton's and 3D matter cores, but you might as well have said that ghosts and goblins make up matter.

What you have is a work of science fiction, not actual science. It's like dreaming up how transporters work in Star Trek. All perfectly logical and practical, but completely unrelated to anything in reality because none of the terminology matches up.

I don't think your concepts are actually wrong, but you need to relate it to things that we actually recognize in mainstream physics. 

For example, instead of "3D matter core", you could do something like say that space is made out of positrons and electrons. This is an example of something that we already recognize exist as settled science, rather than something obviously made up with no experimental support.

Instead of making up "bitons", you could say a positron/electron dipole or a neutron is what fills space. This directly relates your concepts to things which are already well known and accepted and not based on ghosts and goblins. This would also be directly experimentally testable.

You don't have to do that exactly, but it could be based on any of the particles in the standard model like quarks, pions, neutrinos, etc. etc. - but something we've seen in particle accelerator experiments. Not "bitons" which cannot be detected with any experiment even if given unlimited funding.

It's true that most things like "atoms" start out as undetectable, but the hypothesis leads to experiments which can be tested. So if water is made out of 2 other atoms, then we should be able to separate them and observe their different properties. That's provable.

The problem with a biton is that the hypothesis doesn't lead to any experiments which can be actually verified. It's like trying to verify if the Star Trek transporter works.

So this is why you can't use the "excuse" that everything was unknown at some point. Without any experimental basis, your hypothesis of 3D matter cores is purely a work of science fiction. Entertaining, but no relation to reality and not provable.

"Not provable" = "Science Fiction"

While were on the subject, I don't see your explanation for exactly what an "electron" is? How many 3D matter cores is this made out of and in what arrangement?

If the electron isn't fundamental and is made of your matter cores, then why haven't we been able to observe that structure in electrons? We have NEVER found any experiment indicating an electron has any structure. None. It is not composed of anything, contrary to your theory.

Of course, if your 3D matter core was actually an electron, then you wouldn't have that problem, but since it isn't, you have a major problem.

Furthermore, how is the electron different from the positron and why would they be spontaneously attracted to one another? Why then would two electrons repel each other? How can two positrons repel each other. Where do they get the energy required to create the accelerations?

I suspect you have no answers. 

If you had an answer, that would be very significant, because not even mainstream physics can explain how positrons/electrons and the electric force actually work.

So, if you had a plausible answer, that would give you an edge over existing mainstream thinking.

-Franklin

[Roger Munday]

Subatomic Particles and Gravity

All subatomic particles were invented to try to explain how a force called “gravity” could propagate in an assumed “vacuous” empty space.

The only force that is observed, and has been observed for centuries, to act continuously in the atmosphere (and obviously out into, e.g. interplanetary space) is magnetism, i.e. magnetic fields.

But you and all “physicists” maintain your beliefs, taught in early “education”, of a force called “gravity”.

It does not exist, it is a fictitious force, and an interatomic magnetism is the only observed alternative.

This observed force of magnetism can only propagate in a continuous atmospheric structure of atoms.

But you were all taught to believe in an essentially and ultimately vacuous atmosphere and dogmatically maintain this absurdity.

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/2126ea10-97dc-4507-91c1-7ff5b3095817n%40googlegroups.com.

[matterdoc]

Dear Franklin Sir,

Thank you very much for the detailed reply.

In ancient times, everything was GOD’S WILL. In your time, it is an imaginary ‘positron and electron.’. That is all the difference. Why don’t you start with something more basic? After all, (if they are real), the positrons and electrons have some substance in them and certain structures.

The alternative concept proposed in the book ‘MATTER (Re-examined)’ has logical answers to all your queries. They can be appreciated only if you approach them with an unbiased mind, in sequential order from the first chapter to the last. Taking any part of the text without appreciating the previous descriptions may make no sense. With your current mindset, I doubt you will be able to appreciate the following:.

It is impossible to answer all your queries in one go, as it is to summarise a large book in one short reply. So, as far as possible, I will restrict my reply only to the ‘bitons’. These can be fully appreciated only if you are acquainted with initial descriptions of matter and the development of universal medium and biton by the matter.

The whole of the concept is based on a single assumption. All real entities have substance. Substance provides them with objective reality and a positive existence in space. In the material world, the existence of matter is closest to absolute truth. Therefore, all real entities, including a universal medium, have to be formed by matter as their substance. The universal medium fills the entire space outside the most basic 3D matter particles.

A photon (corpuscle of radiation) has a disc-shaped 3D matter core that moves at the highest possible linear speed and spins about one of its diameters at a spin speed proportional to the quantity of its 3D matter. Movements of the 3D matter core of a photon are provided by the transfer of structural distortions in the surrounding universal medium. The distorted part of the universal medium about the central 3D matter core of a photon has many similarities with EM waves in each plane. Central 3D matter core and the structural distortions in the surrounding universal medium together form a photon.

Two complementary photons combine in a binary fashion to form a biton. Both photons in a biton spin in phase with each other and move at the speed of light in a common circular path about each other. This is the most stable subatomic particle. Transfer of structural distortions in the universal medium around the biton is the primary electric field. An electric field is a region of circular structural distortions in the universal medium. A field in the universal medium is represented by imaginary lines of force corresponding to the average directions of structural distortion. Clockwise lines of force in an electric field represent the positive electric charge. Anti-clockwise lines of force represent negative electric charge. Electric charge is the relative direction of structural distortions in the universal medium. As they are relative directions, the electric charge of an electric field depends on the relative position of the observer. All electric fields have both positive electric charge as well as negative electric charge.

Under mutual gravitational apparent attraction, bitons may form different groups. Two bitons in mutually perpendicular planes about a common centre form a tetron. A number of tetrons form a single-layered spherical shell called a neutron. A number of tetrons forming a neutron-like spherical shell about a positron is a proton. A number of tetrons forming two neutron-like spherical shells about a positron is a deuteron. Currently, a deuteron is counted as one proton + one neutron. Deuterons are major components of atomic nuclei.

Three bitons in mutually perpendicular planes about a common centre form a hexton. Hextons are of two types:86v gvv an electron and a positron. A hexton has six photons (in three sets—three bitons) moving on the surface of an imaginary sphere and spinning in certain phase relations with each set. Relative directions of their linear and spin motions determine the directions of the three primary electric fields (each of a biton) in the resultant structural distortions in the surrounding universal medium. These fields may be resolved into three types represented by their lines of force. The linear part of the lines of force indicates a magnetic field, the curved part of the lines of force indicates an electric field, and the radial part of the lines of force indicates a nuclear field.

An electron has a south magnetic polarity with no well-defined north magnetic polarity. It has an outward (repulsive) nuclear field. Similarly, a positron has a north magnetic polarity with no well-defined south magnetic polarity. It has an inward (attractive) nuclear field. Both electrons and positrons have identical electric fields with positive and negative electric charges.

Free bitons in nature can be found in the 'halos' around stable galaxies. All 3D objects break down into their constituent bitons as their linear speeds approach the speed of light. Near the spinning galactic periphery, free bitons align to form a halo. The electromagnetic repulsion between the halos of neighbouring galaxies compensates for the gravitational apparent attraction between the galaxies. They keep stable galaxies away from each other to preserve the steady state of the universe.

These are not wild guesses but logically reasonable developments from the single assumption on the existence of matter.

Wishing you all the best!

Nainan        www.matterdoc.info

[Roger Munday]

https://romunpress.co.nz/romunnose/continuous-magnetic-atoms/

This is the (simpler) conclusion to this paper:-

"So there are just two options for the transmission of forces universally:-

1) Vacuous atoms in vacuum, i.e. impossibility.

2) Vacuum is a universally impossible state. Instead there is a universal continuity of magnetic atoms which expand (and contract) with input (emission) of energy and fractionally decrease (increase) in mass density and accordingly increase (decrease) in fluidity.

In conclusion the mythical, one way, force of ‘gravity’ does not exist, there is just one ultimate force acting universally between individual atoms that are composed entirely of matter, which force is also acting between two massive iron spheres suspended in proximity on 40 metre long cables, and is observed to act throughout a spherical volume of over 4 metres of atmosphere around a 5cm long neodymium magnet, and which is acting between the Earth and the Moon and between vast Galaxies.

All atoms in the universe are magnetic and extend their internally generated N-S fields externally to adjacent atoms and these (relatively weak) individual fields generate the magnetic field that is observed to be generated by the Earth at its surface through an atmosphere composed of 25 x 10¹⁸ atoms per cubic centimetre.

Magnetism is the ultimate universal force."

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/c978db7b-2c89-4ba3-abfa-c38d712fd5fdn%40googlegroups.com.

[Franklin Hu]

Nainan,

What would have you conclude that electrons and positrons are "imaginary"? I can easily point to tons of experimental evidence. We definitely see them as individual countable particles in our detectors. All of modern electronics and how CRT tubes rely on it.

By saying that electrons are "imaginary" completely removes any scientific credibility you might have.

Also, you still didn't answer what an "electron" actually is composed of. 

There is also no experimental evidence suggesting an electron has a preferential north or south pole as you suggest. All experiments indicate that an electron acts like a fully formed magnet and there are not any differences in magnetic properties between electrons and positrons other than their opposite charge.

So, this is a prediction of your theory which is directly contradicted by existing experimental evidence.

Therefore,  your theory can be ruled out on that basis alone.

If you don't think so, then why not?

If your theory predicts wrong behavior, then why should we believe it?

Not being mean here, just asking a reasonable question.

-Franklin 

[Roger Munday]

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-anything-like-attraction-or-repulsion-in-gravitational-field-as-we-have-in-magnetic-and-electrostatic-field

“We have a theory regarding why atoms emit photons at any given frequency down to the sub-atomic level and have validated that theory through decades of precise experimentation.

None of these is true about gravity. We have theorized the existence of a gravity particle, known as a “graviton,” but no one has ever experimentally proved that gravitons actually exist. We can’t create gravity or null gravity at will. We don’t know why, except that as a property of matter by definition, gravity comes into being.

This is one of the great voids in our knowledge and one of the great frontiers of physics.”

I have shown the real time image of a continuous wire of gold atoms on a number of occasions, no hypo “gravitons, photons or electrons” are visible or necessary.

But carry on dreaming.

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/0f989481-178c-4fd6-9390-5f5df5cbfcbfn%40googlegroups.com.

[matterdoc]

Dear Franklin Sir,

Electrons and positrons are real material objects; they are not imaginary. Their structures and components are briefly given (if you care) in my last reply. I am sorry; you should have read my reply before commenting.

What is the structure of a magnet? What is charge?

I am fully aware of the outlandish nature of my concept. It is prudent to check the logical reasoning behind any suggestion before rejecting it outright.

Regards,

Nainan.           www.matterdoc.info

[Roger Munday]

You ask about the actual structure of a magnet.

This is an actual image of the magnetic structure of wire of gold atoms.

No room for "electrons/positrons".

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/b5fe7d9e-40a4-4cef-be37-9ddc0376e4f8n%40googlegroups.com.

[Franklin Hu]

Sorry, I did miss that part which is:

" Three bitons in mutually perpendicular planes about a common centre form a hexton. Hextons are of two types:86v gvv an electron and a positron. A hexton has six photons (in three sets—three bitons) moving on the surface of an imaginary sphere and spinning in certain phase relations with each set. Relative directions of their linear and spin motions determine the directions of the three primary electric fields (each of a biton) in the resultant structural distortions in the surrounding universal medium. These fields may be resolved into three types represented by their lines of force. The linear part of the lines of force indicates a magnetic field, the curved part of the lines of force indicates an electric field, and the radial part of the lines of force indicates a nuclear field."

If an electron is formed of three bitons then why is there no evidence of any structure in an electron? You would predict that we would see 3 "things". You also say a hexton has six photons. So you would expect that you could break up an electron and it it should emit 6 photons. Indeed, this would be strong evidence for your hypothesis, but since this definitely doesn't happen (and we would have observed it by now in our particle accelerators), this is evidence against your theory.

However, none of this explains why a positron should attract an electron unless you mean to say that they are magnetically attracted because of the opposite poles, but then you are left with the equally puzzling question of how 2 magnetic poles attract. Replacing one mystery with another mystery isn't solving anything.

All solutions like this have the problem that just by saying that something has different properties, doesn't automatically make it have attractive or repelling forces. For example, I could paint some cubes red and black. They are now definitely different, but the paint color won't make them attract each other. So just trying to identify something like a "clockwise" flow, is grossly insufficient to justify the generation of forces. Also things like liquid flows either colliding or flowing with each other do not create attractive long range forces either. This is easily demonstrated experimentally. 

Also, your assertion that everything has a positive and negative charge flow depending upon how you look at it has also been clearly experimentally disproven. Any electron, no matter how you look at it or approach it, will only have the characteristic of emitting a negative charge field, period. No positive charge field has ever been observed coming out of an electron. NEVER. Once again, if we were to observe such a thing, this would support your theory, but instead it contradicts it.

So we have several possible "predictions" that might be true if your theory is correct, but we find that all of them are false. Therefore, your theory must be false based on the evidence. 

Once again, I'm not being mean or close minded, I'm just looking at it like every other scientist would look at it and compare your theory to experimental evidence. Why should anyone take your theory seriously?

With so many contradictions, why do you persist in supporting your theory? I'm just curious from a philosophy of science perspective of why everyone clutches onto their hopeless pet physics theories in the bright light of experimental falsification.

You shouldn't feel bad because everyone does it including myself, but I want to hear how you justify it to yourself.

-Franklin

[matterdoc]

Dear Franklin Sir,

All statements in my letters are the results of logical reasonings, based on a single assumption—on the existence of matter. No other assumptions are used.

All 3D material objects break down into inferior particles as their linear speed approaches the linear speed of light. Initially, they break down into constituent smaller bodies like molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, hextons, and bitons, and then into constituent photons at the speed of light. Beyond this speed, no material entity can move because the structure of the moving agency, the universal medium, will itself break down. At one stage, the hextons (positrons and electrons) will break down into their (3) constituent bitons. Then each of the bitons would break down into their (6) constituent photons. Bitons are the most stable primary 3D matter particles. If they are not found so far, it does not mean such a structure does not exist.

At the scale of positrons and electrons, all fields are similar. Structural distortions in the universal medium are the work or the fields. Imaginary lines of force represent fields. Linear parts of lines of force indicate a magnetic field, curved parts of lines of force indicate an electric field and radial parts of lines of force indicate a nuclear field. At very small distances, it is very difficult to differentiate between them.

There is no attraction between real entities in nature. All actions are the results of push actions by the universal medium. Separate push actions on two entities towards each other appear as an attraction.

A positron and an electron may move towards each other under interaction between their fields. Their relative orientation determines the interactions. Their magnetic fields apparently attract each other or remain neutral. Their electric fields apparently attract or repel each other. Their nuclear fields provide strong apparent attraction between them, overriding the actions of other fields.

The mechanism for apparent attraction or repulsion between magnetic fields is very simple and logical. There is no mystery about it. They are accomplished by simple mechanical movements of constituent quanta of matter in the universal medium.

Could you please tell me what an electric charge is? Is it a real or imaginary entity? If real, what is its structure and mechanism of action?

I mentioned that every electric field (including those of electrons and positrons) has both positive and negative electric charges. Electric charge is nothing but the relative direction of (curved) lines of force of an electric field. Clockwise lines of force indicate a positive electric charge and anticlockwise lines of force indicate a negative electric charge. The electric charge of an electric field depends on the relative position of the observer; looking at it from one side, its electric charge is positive, and looking from the opposite side, its electric charge is negative. I emphasize that at the scale of subatomic particles, there is no strict differentiation between different types of fields. They are just the structural distortions in the universal medium. Electric charge is not a physical entity. It cannot move or flow.

Thank you for your well-considered judgement. Someone else or at a different time may have a different opinion.

Leaving aside the microscopic world that is beyond the comprehension of laymen, can you please enlighten me on your opinion about planetary motion, which is very much observable by interested people?

Thank you again, Nainan           www.matterdoc.info

[Roger Munday]

Options

There are two options.

1) A hypothetical "gravity" in a vacuous, and universally permeating, interatomic empty space.

For which hypothetical one way acting "force" none of you and no theoretical physicist can describe how it acts as a force, e.g. how the motional, the hypothetical "kinetic actions" of the atmospheric atoms can result in an interatomic reaction.

But you have all been taught, or rather indoctrinated into believing, that your "gravity" permeates  the entire universe in vacuo.

2) The observed continuously acting N-S magnetic fields. 

Which are observed to continuously occupy, e.g. the space around between the Earth and the Moon and so transmit, e.g. magnetically and collectively act and react, within a continuous atomic medium  between these bodies.

The Earth and the Moon are observed to generate magnetic fields.

But you will no doubt continue to believe in the nonsense that you were taught in physics classes decades ago.

Magnetism is observed to act continuously in the atmospheres of both the Earth and the Moon.

And magnetic fields act and react to control the entire universe.

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/cf4e60f7-d7c9-4d88-aa78-5c6e5b0145f5n%40googlegroups.com.

[Roger Munday]

The Earth's magnetic field

“The Earth's magnetic field is transmitted, generating electric currents that create a magnetic field with north and south poles, essentially acting like a giant bar magnet with its field lines extending out into space; this process is called the "dynamo effect" and is responsible for the continuous transmission of the magnetic field around the planet.”

And:- “Earth's magnetic field, also known as the geomagnetic field, is the magnetic field that extends from Earth’s interior out into space.”

The Earth and the Moon’s magnetic fields are aligned in the same N-S directions and, if we take a magnetic compass out into space between the two bodies its compass alignments will continuously maintain the Earth’s observed N-S magnetic field until it meets the, lesser generated and extended, observed magnetic field of the Moon, which lunar field is observed to be aligned in a N-S direction with that of the Earth.

Therefore there are extensive magnetic fields emitted and transmitted by both bodies, and which can only act and interact continuously within their atmospheres.

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

The Transmissions and the Interactions of Magnetic Fields.

So, you evidently do not consider that magnetic fields are fundamental to the transmission of forces in the atmosphere.

Consider the “electric chair” production of a strong and static realignment of the natural magnetic fields within the brains of those who break the laws in some countries, which has been observed to kill such people.

This is achieved by generating rigid N-S magnetic fields in the brains of those who have, for example, murdered other human beings.

In other words the naturally random, functional N-S alignments of all the atoms and cells in their brains are all diverted to the static N-S field generated by the apparatus that is attached to and covers their heads, and so these forced realignments effectively stops these random interactions of their brain cells and kills them in a relatively short period.

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

Matter

“There is a whole army of leading physicists such as Lee Smolin, Peter Woit, Roger Penrose, Eric Weinstein to name a few, who claim that physics is in a crisis but they have not been able to put the finger to where modern physics has gone wrong”

And they, i.e. these so called “physicists” believe that:-

1) “Motion is relative to absolute space vacuum, a physical object/medium that is motionless.”

2) “It (i.e. “space vacuum”) is - made visible by CMBR, the relic radiation left by the Big Bang process.”

3) Vacuum Chamber - a sealed environment where air has been removed, creating a near-perfect vacuum.

In other words a “perfect vacuum” is experimentally unattainable.

Yet you all believe that this unattainable “absolute vacuum” exists.

And quote:- “they have not been able to put the finger to where modern physics has gone wrong”.

There is one and only one solution.

Matter exists and is continuous.

Atoms collectively expand and contract with inputs and emissions of radiant energy.

There is no evidence whatsoever of the “existence” of an absolute vacuum.

Roger Munday

[matterdoc]

Dear Sir,

1). Motion is relative to absolute space filled with an all-encompassing universal medium and basic 3D matter particles. Except for local disturbances, on an average, the universal medium provides a steady and absolute reference.

2). Universal medium is the combination of 2D latticework structures formed separately in all possible planes by quanta of matter that are invisible by our standard.

3). A sealed chamber from where all 3D matter particles are removed contains part of the universal medium in that region.

 Absolute or perfect vacuum does not exist. Entire space outside the most basic 3D matter particles is filled with universal medium formed by quanta of matter in their lower spatial states. Although the universal medium is formed by seemingly solid quanta of matter, it behaves like a perfect fluid due to its structure.

Existence of matter is closest to absolute truth. It exists in the form of independent quanta of matter that has a tendency to reduce its existence to minimum spatial dimensions. Energy is an imaginary entity that exists in mathematical analyses and in the minds of physicists.

Nainan.          www.matterdoc.info

[Roger Munday]

Gold Wire

This link shows an actual wire of gold atoms.

If heat is applied it is observed that these atoms expand individually and the wire expands laterally and longitudinally.

If sufficient heat is applied to this wire the atoms expand to the point where the mass densities of the component atoms results in a collective liquefaction.

/home/user/Desktop/Desktop Images/Nano Bridge 1 Row.jpg

Roger Munday

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/3c2c45a0-39c1-48d5-bec8-daf29cc90305n%40googlegroups.com.

[Roger Munday]

[Roger Munday]

There is one, and only one observed force that acts in the atmosphere and which can act and react between the atoms in this wire.

Magnetism. 

Roger Munday