[vacuum-mechanics]

Dear Dave and friends,



Strictly speaking my concept is that “mass” (matter) is the condensed (tiny black hole) of gravitation energy (vacuum medium). So actually it is not the separate entity. (Please remind that matter composes of subatomic particles – electron, proton and neutron which were created from tiny black holes.)



My fundamental assumption is that gravitation energy is the primordial entity which forms to be the fabric structure of the universe. So it exists together with the universe’s space even there is no matter inside.



Sincerely yours,

Nimit Th.

[dleviwing]

Nimit;
Mass is based on the inertia property of matter or resistance to a change of motion.
It is not proper to interpret mass as matter. Even the use of mass as a measure of the quantity of matter is obscure and abstract. We can convert "mass" to "energy" and energy to mass; but we cannot convert matter to energy or visa versa.

The best way to view the term mass is to consider it as a value that represents the "potential energy" of the system.

The fundamental entity of the universe is a physical substance, energy is the measure of the state of motion of that substance and should not be represented as an entity with its own attributes.
Best regards;
Dave

[vacuum-mechanics]

Dear Dave and friends,

Thanks for your correction and suggestion.

-What I meant “mass (matter)” is “mass of matter”.

- For my concept, vacuum medium (vacuum energy) is a physical substance (its general property is the same as the aether) which has a special property that each of its infinitesimal part attracts the other part together (their own gravity). This is a new concept, so it should be classified as a new kind of ontology.
-What is the meaning that “the fundamental entity of the universe is a physical substance” you said?
-I insist that matter can convert to energy based on my concept that matter is created from the condensed of vacuum energy as mentioned.

Sincerely yours,

Nimt Th.

[dleviwing]

VM;
View the thread "Dimensions and Entities", it will give you a better understanding of my views.
I don't wish to disappoint you, but your concept is not new. Many have proposed similar concepts and each making the same claim that "energy" is a unique entity of the universe.
I will always argue this approach as misleading and ambiguous.
Best regards;
Dave

[vacuum-mechanics]

Dear Dave and friends,

- It is all right, you didn’t disappoint me at all. What we are doing is just a scientific discussion.

- There may be some similar concepts, but what really matter is how well that the concept could be used to solve the problems and explain the natural phenomena involved, isn’t it?

- Would you please talk in more detail about “misleading and ambiguous” for my concept?

- By the way, I need more time to study “Dimensions and entities” so letter we would discuss this matter again.

Sincerely yours,

Nimt Th.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by vacuum-mechanics - Would you please talk in more detail about “misleading and ambiguous” for my concept?

Nimt
Basically what I'm referring to is expressed in the phrase "A rose by any other name"!!!

When you reduce existence to its fundamentals, "matter" is the only physical entity.
"ENERGY" arises from the properties of this physical entity and only causes confusion when it is referred to as another entity of the universe.
Radiant energy is a state of motion of the matter that constitutes space or the vacuum.
Kinetic energy is only the conversion of the mass function of matter to the wave function of matter.

ENERGY IS NOT AN ENTITY OF THE UNIVERSE; it is only a measured term defining the motion and interactions of matter.

When we refer to "energy" we are referring to a state of motion of an object (mass/potential energy) or a change in the state of motion of an object (the measurement kinetic or radiant).

I only object to those who tend to make science unreasonably complex. Using the term energy as you do, only promote this complexity and it is also not real.

These simple terms have been abused far too long and it is time to correct this foolish trend to redefine the simple terms of physics just to invent another unnecessary theory to explain what is already being explained by ambiguous terminology. (reffering to string theory)
It is my hope that TOEquest members not contribute to these trends, and seek a real solution that does not add to the problem.

Regards;
Dave

PS: You might wish to change the resolution of the graphic on your opening web page. Not everyone has a compute capable of this animation and usually back out of your site without reading it.

[vacuum-mechanics]

Dear Dave and friends,

-The critical different point between our concepts is that, for me - energy (not the action) is the only physical entity of the universe (and the matter is only its appearance form), while yours is the matter, right? If so please explain where is the matter in the universe come from?

- For my opinion my new energy (or anything you will called it) concept is very simple, it is a REAL thing and it is the way of cause and effect concept. You have always got struck to the conventional concept of energy, this lead you to the same conclusion. To get my concept, first you have to try to accept that actually energy is only the definition of the action of something (not an entity). Second try to visualize that my “energy” is something that existed for maintaining the fabric structure of the universe – a new ontology!

-If we still “think” in the old way concept, then what we would get is TON (the theory of nothing)! It is a pleasure and interesting to have discussing with you, thanks.

Sincerely yours,

Nimit Th.

[dleviwing]

Nimit;
I have no objections to someone creating a new science with new definitions for otherwise common terms. Several have used this method in the past and are still doing so in today's science. You know! The one that invented Relativity, those who created Quantum Physics, and those who are pushing String Theory.
Do you wish to be among them?

As yet, no one has produced a paradigm capable of explaining reality to any rational degree of understanding.

Though your concepts provides more rationality in some aspects, it also injects conflicts of terminology in others.
You may wish to consider this when conveying you ideas to others. It is an enormous task to ask others to convert their comprehension of reality to adopt yours.
Regards;
Dave

[mkirkpatrick]

Hello Nimit,read your article and found it very interesting indeed,you said "quote
Gravitation is the primordial entity which forms to be the fabric structure of the
universe,"unquote.Indeed gravity has some odd ways of behaving?I wonder if it
could be further said,that it behaves like weighty thoughts rushing towards
a meeting with a loved one,attracted to each other by love,preposterous I here
you say,well these words are used to describe behavior in quantum mechanics.
Things rush towards each other,they also repel one another,dislike,hate?
The universe is certainly full of something,gravity,or thought,makes no real
difference in the scheme of things,does It !


kind regards michael.

[vacuum-mechanics]

Dear friends,

- Dave, Thanks for your creative comment; you are right that I have to accept some problem about terminology. But it is the only way if we want to do something new (otherwise you are got struck by it), anyway if we keep in mind that terminology is created by men while physics is the way of nature! Then we will happily accept, isn’t it?

By the way, I have one example that it kept annoying me; string theory is an over dimensions theory! The root problem comes from people who believe in mathematic (which create by men) than physics that created by God (nature)!

-Michael, thank for your interesting in my concept Any way may be because I am not so good in English so I could not very clear about your words. But I will pretend and try to that I understood (please forgive me).

-Talking about gravity it is really special, but it is very simple indeed (in my concept). First if we want to overcome the problem of the existence of “everything” in the universe (include the universe itself), we have to postulate some connection between “existence and nonexistence” and this is the starting point of the new concept.

Second we have to prove for the existence of the “connection” that is vacuum medium (or “anything” which was called). Finally if we could link it to the real world and also could explain the unsolved problems then this is what we want to, isn’t it?

-By the way, now I am writing my next paper about quantum mechanics title “Completed quantum mechanical theory” which would be finished soon. Then we will have a lot interesting things to discuss, so pleas wait!

Sincerely yours,

Nimit Th.