01.04. Everything and Nothing

Table and Apple
Everything and Nothing are philosophic terms, so ´elementary´ requisits of philosophs are demanded: a table and an apple. Esoteric aesthete above immediately enthuses harmony of colours and charisma of apple. Real materialist above is hungry and takes the apple - apple disappears, nothing left. Scientist above states, materialist obvisiously did satisfy his urge (however he refrained from explications about real chemical-physical processes of this emotional process).

Real philosoph however needs real processes not at all. By pure mental forces he imagines that table and this apple. He is conscious of thinking about this constellation. He doesn´t doubt certainty of existance of both objects (if they would be real instead of only imagined by his fictive experiment). He draws evident conclusion, also he as watching subject objectively is existent, not only fictively but really.

Meanwhile, esoteric aestete enthuses about beautyful grained table and which wonderful materia wood would be. Now, scientist explains, wood is no ´materia´ but exists of cellulose, mostly of carbonhydrogens etc.

Based at previous chapter however, I deny table like apple to exist really, cause only that single something by different movements produces appearance of both occurrences. Indeed, that´s most extreme abstraction, however based at previous only valid understanding of really only one-thing´s existance and its various movements. By this One lastly exists All, only its different movements result impression of all different stuff.

Patterns of Movements
Different occurrences differ only by different patterns of movements. Movement-patterns of material bodies can´t mutually penetrate each other (apple keeps lieing at the table, regardless of his weight). Material bodies show different stability (if apple hits hard onto table, apple-mush could result). Also molecules resp. atoms are mutually inpenetrable patterns, however can be mixed up (e.g. gases of air or mixture of fluids).

Above this, there are physical movement´s patterns, which can penetrate into or through other patterns or are reflected by other patterns, e.g. electromagnet waves. Light of sun e.g. is reflected by table like apple, by the way into eyes of viewer (and / or warms up materials). On the other hand, x-rays e.g. could penetrate more or less material parts of table like apple. Electric flux however can not run though dry wood but well through wet apple.

So only by different shape of movements of ether, different physical occurrences result, those of different density of material bodies, but also those of real effects of physical forces, not only of mechanical kind, no matter regarded as movements of particles or waves.

All
These statements not at all are only philosophical understanding. At main sections of this workout, each pattern of movements will be described in details, as totally real motion of totally real original substance. Philosophically extreme abstraction however is that statement, ´All exists of that One´. This single substance, at the following is called ´ether´ (at the moment as provisional ´empty word´, until this term is defined precisely further down).

So we come to original subject of this chapter. Apple above - regardless of its real existance of ether - as subset could be included into superior, thus abstract terms like food, plants, living-beings, earth, sun-system, galaxy, universe. Each of these subsets resp. abstract hierachies however are embedded in collective term of ´all´ (more than every things), thus ´all´ includes maximum of real and abstract range.

Nothing
There is only one term with even larger contents, word ´nothing´ which already appeared upside. After hungry materialist had eaten this appel, nothing left at this table. This statement is not correct. Correct statement would have been, now no apple exists at the table.

It´s allowed to negate, e.g. ´it exists no fruits´. This limited negation however means, there is all - besides fruits. General negation of unlimited ´nothing´ however excludes all - not only existance of real facts but also existance of abstract terms.

By this meaning, ´nothing´ includes more than ´all´: it even excludes ´existance´ or ´being´ resp. possibility of ´it is´. Philsophically resp. by strong logic, ´it is nothing´ is contradictionary by itself.

So it´s to state: as soon as there exists certain knowledge of ´there is some thing´, i.e. ´there is being´, then statement ´it is no thing´, i.e. ´there is not-being´, no longer is possible. To many readers these conciderations might look like ´lawyer´s splitting hairs´. Un-logic of ´nothing´ however is easy to demonstrate by concrete examples.

Vacuum
Modern science of physics called conciderations about existance of ether ´naive mechanistics´, has replaced concrete ether by abstract terms of ´fields´ or ´space-time´. By modern physic-theories, universe is ´filled up with vacuum´, so universe is a space with at least extremly diluted materia, practically some softer definition of ´nothing´.

Within this ´relative´ nothing, electromagnic waves wander. It´s questionable, whether there are particles running through space or waves resp. for safety´s sake abstract term of part-wave-dualism is concepted resp. accepted. At any case, eventually remaining part of real materia is not thought to be medium for spreading of electromagnetic waves.

By naiv mechanical understanding, waves are movements. Now, movement logically demands motion of something. Even if statement ´it is nothing´ (within vacuum) would be accepted, statement ´it is moving nothing´ speaks for itself. If mechanistics is called naiv, then this ´courage for abstraction´ must be called voluntary fiction, lacking every logic like real foundation.

Opposite, if instead of waves however would run concrete, real existing particles (photonen, neutrinos etc.) through ´empty´ universe, two questions comes up: of which substance photon is part resp. of which substance photon is build of. First: photon-parts are part of all materia, like a brick is part of a house. Second: bricks are made of loam - and photon-particles are made of ´nothing´?

Even statement ´photon-particles are made of nothing´ would be accepted: why should this ´assemby of nothing´ not dissolve immediately into rest of nothing of universe-wide vacuum? Common answer is: cause attractive forces of atomic nucleus keep electons together - however, photons have no nucleus. So what ever should photon-wave or photon-particle protect for diffunding into nothing, not only by square of distance, but immediately?

Attractive Forces
At previous chapter, attractive forces of gravity already were mentioned. Corresponding attractive forces (however much stronger) are defined as property of electic fields between likely charges. Above this, strong nucleus-forces hold particles together (again essentially stronger) and are essential property of atomic nucleus. All these abstract terms of attractive forces are based on - insufficiently interpreted - naiv mechanistics.

Analog to gravity effect as an example was mentioned that ball, turning around an axis, guided by string. Into radial direction towards fulcrum is demanded a force - however this force not at all must be pulling force (like done by string). If this ball would roll alongside a round wall, ball would be pressed into circled track likely.

So not at all it´s compelling consequence, circled movement or keeping-together could only be done by ´attracting forces´. Opposite, it´s mental arbitraryness to assume attracting forces (analog to mechanical processes, one of diverse solutions) as exclusive possibility.

By example of string it´s imaginable, pulling forces could really exist. At later chapters however I will describe, this holding-together of materials (until breaking point) in reality is result of pressing-forces of ether.

If now however, attractive forces of gravity, electric charges or of atomic nucleus should affect through ´nothing´, over distances, so this is quite impossible to imagine. It´s not allowed to introduce abstract terms, besides collective terms for realities. If there is nothing else but ´appearance´ (working likely to simple mechanism) - attractive force is nothing else but ´empty word´, unjustified fiction.

Pressing Forces
There are clear alternative solutions, as shown upside by mechanical example of that ball, rolling alongside a round wall, thus pressing ball into circled track. There is an other example, totally real and important, discussed intensively at my Fluid-Technologie: effect of suctrion. Suction is a shape of (appearantly) attracting force within fluids or at solid bodies within fluids.

Suction is an area with relative less density - however this suction by itself doesn´t affect anything. Movement exclusively comes up, as particles of neighbouring areas of higher medium-density fall into relative ´vacuum´. However, in sum no stronger movement (no higher kinetic energy) results, only directions of movements are other kind (by majority showing into same direction) and distance of each molecule´s movement becomes some longer.

New appearing force (only towards outside) is caused by steady given, normal molecular movements within gases and liquids. Effect of forces come up - but energy (sum of kinetic energy of all movements) remains constant. Only little bit other kind of movement of concerned molecules results appearance of ´attractive forces´ of suction - which in reality however is based at normal pressure forces within medium.

Physical Fields
Known ´fields´ of different kind are mental matrix, into which each direction and value of physical force is marked (resp. is to calculate by compressed shape of corresponding formulas). This abstract arrangement is useful for calculations about effects of these forces.

However it´s not allowed to draw logic back-conclusions from abstract, mental tool onto real effect of forces and assuming abstract nothing as medium. This empty word ´field´ was introduces provisionally, only cause one was not able to define properties of medium corresponding to real identified effects of forces. Cause abstract calculation-technics did produce sufficient results, one ´forgot´ to search for basic realities. Nevertheless it won´t be useful for searching truth of real medium and processes by installing abstract terms like ´nothing´ or as a precaution assuming ´vacuum´.

Space-Time-Continuum
As essential progress was celebrated abstract design of ´bended space-time-continuum´ 1905 by Einstein, where existance of ether was declared ´superfluous´. Totally ´forgotten´ resp. neglected are Einstein´s later publications, e.g. of 1925: ´There are grave arguments for ether-hypothesis. Complete negation of ether would mean, empty space no longer would show any physical qualities ... based at General Relativity Theory space has certain physical properties; so by this sense there is ether existing. Based at General Relativity Theory, space without ether is inthinkable´.

So also Einstein did recognize logically clear, by ´nothing´ indeed will remain just nothing in total. It´s remarkable, space ´based´ at his theory should show this or that property (so also he deduced from abstract terms to reality, like above at common interpretation of ´fields´). It´s logically not quite understandable, that it should exist ether only ´by this sense´ - if next sentence space-without-ether is called ´inthinkable´.

Old term of ether as name for real substance was ´cancelled´, cause one could not find nore define proper properties of medium for diverse physical occurrences. (Supposed) negative experiments for approval of ether like all theoretical conciderations are based at one, not mentioned but steady present assumption: here is materia resp. are particles and around these ´matter´ of facts is - probably - ether.

This permanent demarcation resp. thinking-by-parts blocks researches for ´proper´ ether up to now. However, today it´s no longer quite naiv to think about real substance instead of thinking about abstract nothing.

01.05. Space and Time

Ether-Physics and -Philosophy