APPENDIX K THE INCORRECTNESS OF POINT FORCES
Scientists, to get to equations that lead them to think of point forces, had to measure quantities and qualities, such as light, with distance involved. So to deny distance (conceptually and logically associated with dimension also) is to invalidate the experiments that used it as such, is it not?
Point forces must have distance between them, i.e., void, else if no void it’s one continuity, and reality for us could not exist. Therefore a void has dimension, from mathematical point to mathematical point, i.e., distance. But if matter has no dimension, i.e. is only a point force, then spaces to each side of the point are adjacent, i.e. the void is continuous and no reality exists.
Therefore matter must have dimension. This same reasoning concerning mathematical points apply in all three dimensional directions, therefore matter must be a substance of corpuscular nature (three dimensional), but of a different quality than void (space), which also must be three dimensional. But if forces emanate from the corpuscle they must not be infinite but set values as if infinite no difference in values in the universe. But if set values emanate from the corpuscle then the stronger forces would pull all together. Likewise if repulsive forces act as they get closer, a transition point would be point of “congealing” and stagnation of movement, as well as the fact that one is overlapping an attractive and repulsive force from the same source, which same should cancel out each other and all is unworkable, for there is no flux in the system. Therefore no mechanics and realities as we know. See also #6 under “Concepts and Math” below.
Hence I would say matter must be corpuscular without attractive or repulsive force emanating from the same, which gives not much choice I can imagine except inherit motion to matter, and all “forces” we know of are statistical sorting out of motion and collisions of corpuscular matter on a primary level beyond experimental and diagnostic reach.
RESTATEMENT OF THE ABOVE IDEA ON MATHEMATICAL POINTS
If reality comes from forces from mathematical points, that force must act over distance on other mathematical points, else all reality is just contained in one mathematical point. Therefore distance must be real. And if a less dense area is just a mathematical point then all area (remember it was just proved distance is real) around that point must be more dense. Likewise then the less dense spot must extend beyond that mathematical point else the more dense area in proximity around it must be one entity. It doesn't matter if there are different grades of density, the same logic concerning mathematical points are true. Therefore this proves space (void or less dense) and matter, or more dense places, take up area.
Somewhat similarly, logically, any forces emanating from corpuscular matter or void area (remember it was just proved mathematical points cannot carry force) would stagnate any system. Also it violates the principle of conservation of “energy”. For example say mass A and B, while at rest, act though an attractive force on each other until collision. This force then would create motion of A and B, while the force acting is constant still, it has created mass x velocity where there was none, a violation of the law of conservation of “energy”.
In Defense of Matter
Logic is fundamental, just like the world is real, or we would not be talking about it, so logic is real, or any analysis of the world would be useless. To not consider the world real, or logic necessary, is to be most pessimistic. Lets be optimistic, and believe, the world is real and logic is necessary. That being the case, in my opinion, and I hope for some others, it is, I believe it is quite possible to mathematically/ geometrically/conceptually to disprove the concept of force at a distance, or from field, ON A FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL as I have above. So if this is so it leaves only motion. Motions of points only would have no possibility of creating a system of order and reality as we know it. Only motion of a mass larger than a point could produce, by impact a system worth consideration, in fact the only system worth considering, if we stick to logic.
Therefore mass is most real. Energy is a product of macroscopic particles, on a fundamental level momentum is the only quality. But because motion is the one factor that changes mathematically, though mass undergoes geometric re-arrangement, only motion is a quality that can be transferred from one body to another, that is why Energy seems to the only thing of substance in current physics, because that is the thing that can be measured. But it is quite a fallacy to say that mass is non-existent.
Really Wild Thought on the Logic for Fundamental Factors in a System
Here is a wild thought, just a discussion haven't thought it all though, but strikes me as quite possible. There can be NO interrelationships, interaction, effect, etc. between any TYPES of factors on a primary level. For example, if mass effected velocity, say mass of 1 increased sames velocity by 10, this would then be happening in all masses, so would be the same as it not happening at all, in term of relationships between particles(masses). Likewise with any effect, over distance, like the force of gravity. If any factor of a primary type has an effect on some other primary factor type the whole system is the same. That is any continuing effect, rather it is uniform or changing. Primary level is potential effect from a "static" state, or real effect over small interval. Secondary level is when the state is interrupted by a discontinuous change. This change was not acting in any way (effect) before it happened, which would be the primary level, it only preexisted via spatial relationships or time. So this invalidates all the fundamentals of physics as we now know it, as interrelationships are there, so they must not be a fundamental. With my hypothesis mass is mass and velocity occurs within mass, but they do not effect each other, just co-exist together. That is a different thing.
Indeed any more than two interrelated factors messes up a system of fundamental elements. Gardening has many unrelated factors (no direct relationships). For example, fertilizing the soil does not cause it to rain, pulling weeds does not create seeds to plant. Planting seeds does not cause the sun to shine, etc. But physics finds things are related. But if 3 or more factors I believe the interrelations would be self limiting. Only 2 factors would work I believe. Time and space are not factors of relation, but contain same, and measure same, not factors of inter-involvement in themselves. Even further only one factor can change in a system of two interrelated factors, if they both change, the interrelation is canceled out. So velocity changes upon collisions, but if mass did too, then the relationship of mass and velocity would be mixed up. That is if the velocity lost from mass 1 to mass 2 changes the velocity of each, while conserving the total. But if mass 1 and 2 changed also at the collision then there might be no change in momentum of the resulting particles over the former, negating any secondary tier effects.
So it is only on the secondary level that proportionality and effect are part of a dynamic system with change and process possible. The cause and effect in classical physics are real and dynamic, because they have a more primary type behind them. That primary type has discontinuity, and due to collisions causes effects like electricity and magnetism, that are secondary types of factors driven by primary types. The effects are created in part by structure, built from primary masses. If the primary types had effects in themselves they the would be bogus to any dynamic nature to a system. Likewise then the effects of secondary types are not absolute effects in the sense of there own "power" but statistical effects resulting from primary occurrences. So any physics dependent on primary factors that cause effect on other primary types cannot work. And current physics is rife with the same.
That is effects of type groups on other type groups. Whereas the group of all masses with velocity undergoes collisions and has resulting effects, this itself is a secondary effect. Mass, though coexistent with velocity, does not effect it or vice versa. But in Current physics, primary things like gravity do effect mass, etc. So real gravity , for example, is a macro effect another primary cause.
So if something else effects primary mass, it is a violation of the above. If something else effects primary velocity it is a violation of the above. Co-existent factors, space, time, mass, velocity, perhaps immutability, or other are okay because they do not effect the other types, just co-exist. Its when one type effects, for example space effects time, time effects mass, this is a violation, such a system automatically is stagnate and unchanging in nature. So to summarize:
There can be a unlimited amount of co-existent factors (types) to a system.
There can be only two interrelated factors (types)to a system.
can be only one factor (type) that undergoes change in a system.
In my system the co-existent factors are: space, time, mass, velocity, perhaps immutability.
The interrelated factors are mass and velocity.
Only velocity undergoes change.
Structural change of mass effects the dynamics of the system as much as anything. But the primary unit of mass does not co-mingle or change state or size in any way.
If this is true, then somewhere there is a lack of continuum analysis and whole system reasoning in current physics, though many have done same, some nuisance must be missing, I don't know what.
Anyhow that said, there is a tremendous amount of interrelation among different physics disciplines, down to repeating of similar terms in equations across these disciplines, which must therefore belie more fundamental factors. It should be possible to figure these fundamentals given all the data and equations out there. But one must not add factors, but simplify them, because that is what the evidence calls for according to the above reasoning.
>Appendix L Incorrectness of Curved Space