Alfred Evert 17.02.2003

01.04. Everything and Nothing

Table and Apple
Everything and Nothing are basic philosophic terms. Elementary requisites of philosophers are a table and an apple. The esoteric aesthete of previous chapter immediately enthuses the harmony of colours and the charisma of the apple. The real materialist of previous chapter is hungry and takes the apple - the apple disappears, nothing is left. The scientist of previous chapter states, the materialist obviously did satisfy his urge (however he refrained from explications about real chemical-physical processes of this emotional process).

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

Meanwhile, the esoteric aesthete enthuses about beautiful grained table and the wonderful materia of the wooden table. Now the scientist explains, wood is no ´materia´ but exists of cellulose, mostly of hydrocarbons etc.

Based at previous chapter however, I deny the real existence of that table and that apple, because only that unique something produces the appearance of both occurrences. Indeed, that´s the most extreme abstraction: really existent is only that one-thing and its most different movements are resulting the impression of all different stuff.

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

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

So only by different shape of movements of the aether, different physical occurrences will result, e.g. the different density of material bodies, the real effects of physical forces of mechanical or other kind.

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

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

There is only one term with even larger contents, the word ´nothing´ which already appeared upside. After the hungry materialist had eaten this apple, nothing was left at the table. This statement is not correct. Correct statement would be, now no longer an 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 existence of real facts but also existence of abstract terms.

By this meaning, ´nothing´ includes more than ´all´: it even excludes ´existence´ or ´being´ resp. possibility of ´it is´. Philosophical respective by strong logic, ´it is nothing´ is contradicting 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 the statement ´it is no thing´, i.e. ´there is not-being´, no longer is possible. These considerations might look like ´lawyer splitting hairs´. However, the un-logic of ´nothing´ is easy to demonstrate by concrete examples.

Modern science of physics called the considerations about the existence of an aether a ´naive mechanistic´. These scientists replaced the concrete aether by the abstract terms of ´fields´ or ´space-time´. By modern physic-theories, the universe is ´filled up with vacuum´, so the universe is a space with at least extremely diluted materia, practically some softer definition of ´nothing´.

Within this ´relative´ nothing, electromagnetic waves are wandering. It´s questionable, whether there are particles running through the space or waves. For safety´s sake the abstract term of part-wave-dualism was designed and commonly accepted. At any case, modern scientists deny any real medium would be necessary for the spreading of electromagnetic waves.

By naive mechanical understanding, waves are movements. Now, any movement logically demands the motion of something. Even if the statement ´it is nothing´ (within vacuum) would be accepted, the statement ´it is moving nothing´ speaks for itself. If mechanistic thinking is called naive, that ´courage for abstraction´ of common nature sciences must be called voluntary fiction, lacking logic like real foundation.

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

Even the statement ´photon-particles are made of nothing´ would be accepted: why should this ´assembly of nothing´ not dissolve immediately into the rest of nothing of universe-wide vacuum? Common answer is: cause attractive forces of atomic nucleus keep the electrons together. However, photons have no nucleus. So what ever should a photon-wave or a photon-particle protect for diffusing into the 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 a property of electric fields between likely charges. Above this, strong nucleus-forces hold particles together (again essentially stronger) and are the essential property of atomic nucleus. All these abstract terms of attractive forces are based on - insufficiently interpreted - naive mechanistic.

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

So not at all it´s the compelling consequence, circled movement or keeping-together could only be done by ´attracting forces´. Opposite, it´s a mental arbitrary act to assume attracting forces as exclusive possibility - analogue to mechanical processes. However, that´s only one of diverse possible solutions.

By the example of the 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 the result of pressing-forces of the aether.

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

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

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

The appearing force (only towards outside) is caused by steady given, normal molecular movements within gases and liquids. The effect of a forces comes up - however the energy (sum of kinetic energy of all movements) remains constant. Only that little redirection of the normal movements of concerned molecules results the appearance of ´attractive forces´ of suction - which in reality however is based at normal pressure forces within the medium.

Physical Fields
Known ´fields´ of different kind are a mental matrix, where the direction and values of physical forces are marked (resp. are calculated by the compressed shape of corresponding formula). 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 tools onto the real effect of forces and to assume an abstract nothing as medium. This empty word ´field´ was introduces provisionally, only because one was not able to define the properties of a medium corresponding to the real identified effects of forces. As the abstract calculation-techniques produced sufficient results, one ´forgot´ to search for the basic realities. However it´s not useful to install abstract terms like ´nothing´ or ´vacuum´ for searching the truth of the real background medium and processes.

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

So also Einstein recognize logically clear, by ´nothing´ indeed will remain just nothing in total. It´s remarkable, the 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 aether only ´by this sense´ - if at next sentence space-without-ether is called ´unthinkable´.

The old term of aether as the name for a real substance was ´cancelled´, cause one could not find nor define the proper properties of that medium for diverse physical occurrences. (Supposed) negative experiments for approval of aether like all theoretical considerations are based at one, not mentioned but steady present assumption: here is materia resp. are particles and around these ´matter´ of facts is - probably - an aether.

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

01.05. Space and Time Aether-Physics and -Philosophy