## 20181128

### Why does matter always contain other matter in motion?

PSI Blog 20181128 Why does matter always contain other matter in motion?

[GB: For the same reason that a balloon contains matter inside to resist the matter outside--univironmental determinism, remember?]

Abhi:

Then what would happen if all forms of matter were not in motion?

[GB: There would be no universe.]

Abhi:

But why? Besides, when Einstein said that nothing can travel faster than light, he put an upper limit on maximum velocity in the universe i.e. 299,792,458 m/s. But what he said was actually wrong because faster than light is possible and there is no upper limit on maximum velocity in the universe. Similarly when you say that matter must be in motion, you are putting a lower limit on minimum velocity in the universe i.e. velocity of matter must be greater than 0 m/s and never equal to it. So it may be possible that this may also be equally wrong because there may not actually be any lower limit on minimum velocity in the universe just the same way there is no upper limit on maximum velocity in the universe. Can you please look deeply into the matter?

[GB: Look at the balloon example again. For the balloon to keep its shape, it simply must have enough pressure inside (submicrocosms in motion) to counteract the pressure outside (supermicrocosms in motion). This is true for all microcosms (things). Decrease the pressure inside and the microcosm implodes; decrease the pressure outside and microcosm explodes. The velocities of the submicrocosms and supermicrocosms are secondary.

By using the analog for sound in air, I have speculated that short-range travel of aether particles might occur at velocities 50% greater than what the medium produces for long-range travel. If you have a reference for faster than light travel, I would like to read it.

The reason c appears as an upper limit on velocity is because that is the velocity characteristic of wave motion through the aether medium. All media have a characteristic for wave velocity (e.g., air transmits sound at 343 m/s). Particle accelerators cannot exceed c because they use electromagnetic wave motion to perform the acceleration. Also, the aether medium is filled with aether particles that provide resistance to the motion of other particles.

Sorry, but to say there are velocities less than 0 makes no sense. On the other hand, you could say there are infinitely small velocities in the same way we can approach absolute zero, but never reach it. That is an experimental fact that provides support both for the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) and for the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).]

henk korbee said...

I quote "Then what would happen if all forms of matter were not in motion?". Then you will not be able to see something apart from the remark that you won't exist.

Arus said...

What Abhi seems to be failing to understand is that all motion is relative. Einstein's first postulate of special relativity is his only real fundamental contribution (his tensor calculus is useful in practice as well but the underlying physical explanation of malleable time and space is disastrous).

So when Abhishek questions whether any matter can ever have a velocity of 0 m/s, the question is "Relative to what?" Implied in his query is still a tacit belief that there is some sort of universal preferred frame of reference (Like space time)....which there isn't.

But even still, the more that I think of it, there can never be 0 m/s speeds relative to anything. Because of microscopic infinity, no two microcosms can ever have the exact same direction or velocity, as you approach infinity, there will be a difference somewhere. So the fourth assumption still holds true.

Even if there could be a moment in which two microcosms had the same relative velocity, it would only be for that exact moment as collisions with other microcosms would quickly change its motion.

henk korbee said...

Hi Glenn, I have question related to the heading: The new defintion of kg will be based on the Planck's constant which is 6,626 070 15 × 10−34 kg⋅m2⋅s−1. The definition of the unit is based on s(econd) due to the speed of light, but the unit s is based on the frequency of some kind of radiation. Then it becomes a mess in my mind. Thus, mass is somekind of radiation? Then there is the conjecture that a photon wit a frequency of 1Hz corresponds to the energy to transport 1kg over 1 meter with an acceleration of 6,626 070 15 × 10−34 m/s2. But a photon has no mass, so what is actually defined?

Glenn Borchardt said...

From Jesse:

You can also take another approach.

What he seems to be failing to understand is that all motion is relative. Einstein's first postulate of special relativity is his only contribution.

So when Abhishek questions whether any matter can ever have a velocity of 0 m/s, the question is "Relative to what?" Implied in his query is still a tacit belief that there is some sort of universal preferred frame of reference (Like space time)....which there isn't.

But even still, the more that I think of it, there can never be 0 m/s speeds relative to anything. Because of microscopic infinity, no two microcosms can ever have the exact same direction or velocity, as you approach infinity, there will be a difference somewhere. So the fourth assumption still holds true.

Glenn Borchardt said...

henk:

You are correct in implying that energy has no mass. Planck's constant concerns the "smallest unit of motion." You are also correct in implying that if the photon has no mass, nothing is defined. Many of the properties of the so-called photon really are the properties of aether particles. It makes sense that the smallest impacts in the baryonic world would be the collisions from aether particles. By using that assumption along with the vortex assumption, I was able to calculate the properties of aether particles (Appendix in IUT).