|
Welcome to eArticleResources.com!
Articles » Reference-&-Education » Science >> View Article
|
 |
|
 |
| The basics of spatial subdimensional structure concept of spacetron |
By:
Vitomir Jovanovic |
|
http://www.scienceomatica.com
With the introduction of the notion of ether, relativist physics aimed at founding a neo-classical view of cosmological interpretation of nature organisation. Ether was supposed to include a material space entity, a substance medium of natural and inter-object interactions. The motive for refuting the concept of ether was based on indirect retention of the notion of absolute space, which was not in accordance with the intentions of the ‘evolutionists’ of contemporary physics.
Let us assume that the theoretical model of the space material entity, whatever this may mean at present, beyond any analytical procedure, is valid or theoretically acceptable. The supposition of space substantiality should not allow the possibility of implementation of heritage of its absolute determinism per se; on the contrary, substantialisation should define self-determinism of space in relation to its absolute setting. The fundamental factor of spatial material basis will be called a spacetron.
The defining domain which would overlap with the dimensional or non-dimensional determinism of spacetron of material or non-material structure is absolutely unfounded, as will be proved later. At the very beginning of algorithm analysis, spacetron should be generated as a fundamental negation of the entity defined as the matter. Each form of spatial intensity, if determined within the fundamental determinism of spatial complex, is a negation of any material form in nature. Continuity of scientific analyses points towards validity of the claim that the constant search for the fundamental bases of the material world in fact represents a non-composite whole. In other words, the outcome of the search for the absolute corpuscle entity is certain to be a failure due to several main reasons: the analytical mode absolutely added to the comprehending subject is a non-extensive whole (the result of the self-destructive subject), the analytical discourse is analogous to self-negating structure, the result of the analysis is a new generic negative code; therefore, the outcome of the analysis demands a repeated or ‘additional’ procedure.
The second reason is a fundamentally wrong starting point of the scientific analysis. The fundamental material entity is not established within the matter itself; therefore, the basis of material determinism does not presuppose a composition of which it is a main factor, but rather contradicting its own negative principle. If we transfer this to the aspect of corpuscle theoretical models of the substance world, we come to the hypothetical possibility of founding a model of material fundamental entity, the determinism of which is not in the matter itself but in a fundamental negation – spatial complex. The result of the hypothetical venture would be the following: a fundamental material entity could be further defined as substantial fundamental ‘voids’ of the spatial unity complex. To put it more simply, the basis of material forms in nature, outside the questionable models of corpuscle or wave-based nature, is in fact a fundamental form of the ‘split’ of spatial continuum in its substance; the absolute space entity, hypothetically called the spacetron, in fact defines a fundamental basis of material forms in nature, although this interaction of model spacetron and basic material aspects should be further examined later on.
http://www.scienceomatica.com
The complexity of the hypothetical spacetron overcomes theoretical divergence and necessarily implies abandonment of corpuscle and wave defining models in the domain of particle entity. |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
