… the Science of Absolute Space

Music? Endless frequency, gravity, magnetism, time



Evidently, we stand at the brink of a new era.

The world of today as we have it and see it, results from applying the principles of a matrix of fields of science, as they have evolved during the last half millennium.

The science of matter!

Prior to its onset alchemy had encompassed and pervaded the world of thinkers and philosophers much to the dislike of the clergy.   Alchemy includes all aspects of life; the material world, the metaphysical world, the world of spirits, gods and miracles.   Firmly embedded in rituals and customs of ancient cultures it served humans for thousands of years, diligently and submissively, yet was abolished arrogantly in ways no one can be proud of.

Science today with its derogative derivative, the industrialisation, has established itself as the demanding, destructive golem[2]; not only dirtying the planet but also devouring tradition, has now fragmented the continuity of culture.   Subsequently, we suffocate in pollution of air, water and soil, accelerating the velocity that moves the state of our planet ever faster towards the point of no repair.

Many species of fauna and flora have been extinguished with an indolent, careless shrug.

Rampaging viruses herald the decay of our health and our species. Science screams louder than those crying out for help, and it tries to defer our attention with ever brighter and better achievements in technology, when, realistically, they have no answer.   The acceleration of the degradation of our world is undeniable and inevitable.

Search for Answers

The entreaty to find answers is inexorable; otherwise, we won’t survive. The science of matter has no answer, we need venture into unknown territory, leave behind the shores of illusionary comfort and again start the alchemists’ search for the philosopher’s stone; this time not for turning metal into gold but to find a way to maintain life on our planet, our survival.

So far, science always focussed on matter, which is understandable because we are made of matter, and we make things out of matter. The world is made up of matter too. We look for the essence of matter; the building blocks and the elements and particles we find are getting smaller and smaller. We build equipment to make those small particles visible and every time we invent a new ‘microscope’ we find more particles.

Scientists found that small particles exist or not, or change their characteristics, compliant with the expectations of the observer.

Philosophy and finally religion has entered into hard-core physics because the scientists can no longer make sense out of what they discover.   Many questions arose: Is the mind creating all these particles?   Does the mind really manifest matter?   Is this the way God created the world?   Was thought first?  Can there be a thinker without matter?

Personally, it appears that we have come full cycle.   Three thousand years ago, through mere deduction, philosophers had conclusively and inevitably arrived at the definition of the indivisible.   In ancient Greek, it is named atomos or atom[3] today.   Unfortunately, we have misused the word.

Per definition the atomos is indivisible, so if you can divide a particle, which is called atom, then this name turns inappropriate. The newly found smaller particle should inherit this reputation.

This incongruence causes significant confusion.   Every time we invent a new “microscope” we discover new particles, so, where are all those tiny particles hidden?   Nowhere, they are either there or not, quite unreliably.

What is constant?   To quote “Nothing is constant but change itself.”

Don’t researchers realise they are searching in the wrong direction? If survival is our ultimate goal, the right direction could lead us towards solutions, suitable to dissolve our dilemma.   However, if you only want to immortalise yourself through stamping your name on a new particle, go right ahead. However, if you look for an understanding look in the direction, you can see.

Remember the story about the man who dropped his house key at night and searched for them under the street lantern.   Another man wanted to help and asked, “Where did you drop the key?”   “Near the door” was the answer.    “Why don’t you look over there?”   “Because I can’t see, it is dark.”

Therefore let’s search where there is light, where we can see without gadgets and follow the saying [4]:

The essential is invisible to the eye.

Let our mind and feelings be our guide, let us close our eyes and reduce the deception of perception.

One can suggest an available, much more sensible and useful answer. There is something, which is always there, constant without change; we always look at it, and we don’t see it because we focus on perpetually altering matter. Change attracts our attention: our eyes are drawn to it.

Things that don’t change or move we do not even realise their existence. This behaviour is part of our set of natural instincts, needed for survival. We needed to react quickly when a sabre tooth tiger was jumping at us. A rock on the ground was hardly ever life threatening.

For obscure reasons, we consider this ever lasting, always existing THING so immaterial, that we only describe its presence through the non‑existence, the absence of matter.   So, what is this mysterious thing, this ‘no‑thing’ this nothing?   Only bold questions like that can open new realms of existence and lead us towards much-needed answers.

A story from my Childhood

At school, besides music and the Arts nothing was of much interest to me. Except for one day when our science teacher told us about atoms.   “In ancient Greek, they thought it would be indivisible, but we now know that they actually are dividable.”   “Oh really?”  “The particles in the core of the atom are called protons, which are orbited by much smaller particles called electrons.”   Still not that interesting.

Then he gave us an example about the size of such an atom.   “The hydrogen[5] atom consists of one proton in the centre and one electron shoots around it. Imagine the proton to be the size of a ping pong ball then the electron would have the size of the head of a needle (not the glass head, the small metal head).

When you put the proton in the corner of a soccer field, the electron would be located in the diagonally opposite corner[6].”

“Wow,” my little mind went, “and what’s in between?”    My teacher was surprised hearing a question coming from my corner.   “Just nothing,” was his shrug answer. I was deeply disappointed about his reply.

From that time on I often saw ping pong balls with needle heads whizzing around them so far away and so small that you could not even see them when you stood next to the ping pong ball. And that so much vastness in between. And that is what matter is made of? If there is so much nothing and just a tiny winy bit of something, how can it be solid? The questions never stopped.

Rather than trying to imagine how much ‘just nothing’ is there in a hydrogen atom I have calculated it for your perusal in the appendix. Just to summarise quickly:

In a hydrogen atom, there is 1000 million millions times more space than matter.

I really like you to feel an impression of the vast space in matter. Here, I have calculated the weight of a piece of copper filling a thimble (no needle this time) after all the space has been taken out of the copper, out of the atom and the spaces between the atoms. It weighs 4.338 million tonnes that’s about half the annual world production of copper.

After space has been put back in again, the volume of the copper block would be 487 cubes of 10´10´10 metres. Or another comparison: A block of units (flats) with 6 units has the volume of approximately 2500 m3.

The copper volume would be that of almost 200 of those buildings. I also used the above results to calculate the volume ratio between space and matter in this block of copper.

In a block of copper, there is about half a million millions times more space than matter. [7]

The ratio is much smaller; the reason for that is because the hydrogen atom is much larger in size thus gaseous than the copper atom which is solid.

The thought arises: If there is so much ‘just nothing’ in an atom how come it feels solid to us? I leave that question for you to answer.   Let’s continue.

All the atoms are different; however, the only reliable, consistent, non‑changing thing is the space in between, including the connotations of ‘just nothing’, void and emptiness.

Once we turn our attention to space we realise it is everywhere, the word ‘omnipresent’ suggests itself, though; generally, we use it in a different context. Above I calculated the space inside a hydrogen atom. How much more space is there around the atom when it attains a structure, a molecule and forms matter?

There is infinitely more Space than Matter.

No thing would exist without the space surrounding it.   All would be one big blob with areas of varying consistency, solidness and viscosity. Imagine that.

Space has been staring at scientists for thousands of years. The Dutch physicist Van’t Holl, the founder of modern physical chemistry, first coined the term space chemistry at the beginning of the twentieth century. Why did he call it that when his focus was on matter?  Nevertheless, even then the subject was not new.

At their School of Numbers about 450 BC, the ancient Greeks, applying theoretical deduction of metaphysics reasoned that all matter came from one source, made from a qualitatively indeterminable primordial unit, the monad, now known as energy. It was stated to be incorporeal, composed of No Thing, but vital and always in motion.

The Greeks inherited this idea of a non‑material foundation of matter from the Ionians[8] of the Cretan civilisation antedating 3000 BC. The same idea appears in the Hebraic Genesis, the Taoism of China whose philosophical heritage in believed to originate from the Indus Delta (Pakistan) and was handed down in the Sanskrit Vedas.

It appears that no one noticed space or if they did they did not consider it worthwhile their attention. Or perhaps it got lost in interpretation because the translators like anyone else focused on solid matter.

Referring to my childhood story, when later during my middle ages someone told me that if you take all the space out of all the matter in the entire universe, then it would fit on the pointy end of a needle. My comment was: “Ah, a needle again. That would be right.”

Sure, one could argue that space as well as matter is only a non‑existent imagination, a fantasy of our perception within the limitations of the human senses.

However, our concern here is the search for a solution for the survival of beings ‘inside our fundamentally similar sensual identification’. Our perception, global as well as individual, as changing and as unreliable it may be, is the reason for us experiencing our existence as well as the threat of our destruction.

Thus, one could deduce that the solution evolving from that limited realm is efficacious in preventing our extinction.  However, it surely is not evident.  And there the saying goes:

The greatest miracles hide behind the most obvious.

This also prerequisites that we accept:

Miracles are part of reality.

In the worst case, we all have different perceptions; some could still find their individual solution, enough for the survival as a species if our existence matters at all. And if it matters to one then it matters.


Allow me to sidetrack at this point and relate another short story to you:   Early in the morning after a stormy night the man went to the dunes to look at the sea, which had been roaring all night, now it was calm. As far as the eye could see the sandy beach was covered with debris.

In the far distance, he noticed someone walking towards him. Quite often the person bent down like picking something up and then throwing whatever it was out into the ocean.   The man was curious and walked down to the edge of the water, and when the person arrived he asked: “What is it that you pick up and throw into the sea?”   “Starfish, they had been washed ashore last night. Otherwise, they will die surely.”

The man looked down and just where he stood he saw at least a hundred.   “There must be millions of them along the beach,” he said. “You can’t throw them all back into the sea? And what does it matter anyway?”

For an answer, the person bent down, picked up a starfish and threw it into the sea.   “It mattered to that one.”


Before we go on let’s not miss one key point:

The Inauguration of a Paradigm

As with all good fields of search and discovery, let’s start with a name and structure with a few axioms and definitions.

There must be order in chaos.

The fundamental principle of our process of gaining understanding relies on structures. At the same time, we observe that such structure will reduce the scope of discovery.

However, history shows that a process, once initiated, will find its course.   Once all cross‑points in a structure are occupied the area of missing links and fields reveal themselves to the searcher evidently.

In our case, the structure is constructed from alternating sections of kenon and matter. Resulting from this sequence, we can describe a pattern. All our perceptions are pattern. Focusing either on kenon or matter singularly is boring. The game of vicissitudes is exciting and supplies the motivation to explore.

Therefore let us embrace the information we have on matter and its interacting with kenon. Let us find out how and why the patterns of perception are created and what their meaning is.   Space is so vast, it is quite cumbersome to grasp. In fact, it is beyond the capacity of our finite minds to successfully cognate the dimensions of infinity.   All our tools and measuring equipment have been designed to manipulate and handle matter.

Therefore I suggest we begin looking at small spaces, those with borders, then we can use our instrument of measurement and production; we simply change our focus and produce space inside and around matter and measure the gaps rather than matter.

Here we already arrive at one distinction, space with and without limits. It’s about time to come up with some names. In particular, for a new field of science, we need come up with some impressive words.

You may comment: “What’s in a name?” If one feels the urge, I think it is good to follow it. Additionally, the word ‘space’ is quite a non‑specific term and has many interpretations.

Let’s begin

At the start of any study, precision in description, identification and meanings are vital to part the mist of ‘mystery’.

After delving into old languages, it was established that Latin did not offer much. There is only one word for ‘space’, which is Spatium, which has the same quality as the English word ‘space’. To say ‘endless space’ or ‘space which has a border’ one has to add an adjective like in Spatium infinitum or Spatium definitum respectively.

The ancient Greeks offer better options. Here we find three words:

1.   Kenon indicating ‘endless or empty space’ and as follows from Democritus[10] explanation, kenon refers to the more physical, tangible space.

2.   Chaos also means ‘endless or empty space’, but in addition, it also expresses the personification of the ‘primordial void’ thus also including the metaphysical and spiritual space.  Today, the general understanding of chaos is disorder and confusion, a meaning not contained in the original.

3.   Choros means ‘space’ in the sense of a limited area that has a border.


Two and a half thousand years ago, Democritus described the empty space between atoms:

“Nothing exists except atomos and kenon;
everything else is opinion”.

To underline the significance allow me to rephrase this statement, Old Democritus will forgive me: “Nothing exists except the indivisible and the void; everything else is opinion.”

What an auspicious omen to have an ancient Greek pre‑runner, even among his fellow‑citizens he had the nickname “the mocker“. At least his focus was equally on matter as well as space.

He postulated the law of impact (action) and reaction, having no difficulties joining science, philosophy and religion. So what has Newton to say new?   Maybe it is only due to the separation of science and religion in our modern forms science.

The expression Chaos would have been my first choice of word because of its inclusion of something else, something metaphysical.  Unfortunately, some ignorant people grabbed hold of it already, applying it in quite and inappropriate way.

Democritus explains the way we perceive the world as a reaction to impulses from falling atomos ont0 or colliding with each other. Where do those falling atoms come from? He explains:  “From the gods, and all the atomos are the same.”  

It appears that Democritus was on our wavelength and he had chosen the word kenon for reasons we do not understand, yet. Quite possibly kenon encompasses spheres beyond the far yonder of our imagination, hidden in the nooks and crannies of the unknown.

Concluding this adventure in linguistic and Greek philosophy, I suggest the following:

Kenon, the new Paradigm

And since that has been decided now, I offer a structure with intersect points named in the following glossary.

Kenonics: (made up from kenon and the ‘tics’ and ‘ics’ which often appear at the end of important words such as ‘mathematics’)

The name for the chapter in which the exploration and establishment of the limitless kenon takes place. We cannot fathom kenon; however, this word would encompass all other expressions and forms of kenon such as void, emptiness, space, etc.

As the indefinitely divisible, we can define kenon to be the opposite unimaginable extreme of atomos, the indivisible matter.

Kenonesis: (kenon and genesis)

The search for the origin and derivation of kenon, which would include philosophical, material and metaphysical aspects of kenon.

Kenonmorphy: (morphology = referring to an outer shape, form and inner support structure, and the change or changeability of it.)

The field of search for the shapeless Gestalt[12], the structure and content of kenon, or that of the shaped Gestalts of kenon, as studied in chorology (see below).

Kenonism: (the postfix ‘…ism’ expresses that the complete word refers to teaching, philosophy, or something that describes its particularities of the main word.)

The collection of philosophy and doctrines that will arise during the discovery of kenon as a necessary adjunct needed for the expansion of information and the acceptance by the general public.

Kenonency: (to do with counting, like in ‘currency’)

Kenometry: (to do with measuring and calculation, like in ‘geometry’ ‘telemetry’) Describing the essential measurable value of kenon, the content of energy or force or any other undiscovered value.

Chorology: (made up from choros and logic, like in seismology or iridology):  Including all the structures and details for the technologists to utilise the tangible gifts kenon will offer humankind.

Orificiology: (made up from orifice and logic):   The study of kenon with borders, could be the first subsection, the more practical aspect of kenon.    A subsection of Chorology, which concerns the study of the characteristics and behaviour of openings and holes.

Holes are absolutely essential for our current way of life, we just have not noticed yet. Due to that importance of this, its predominance and also because Orificiology blends quite easily into established science, the changeover should be quite painless through gradually viewing our world from a slightly different slant.

Aperturology: (made up from aperture and logic):  A useful subdivision for openings and holes, which can open and close or change their size.

The essential Hole

To accentuate the importance of holes in our current world, the reader is encouraged to consider that we could not make even the simplest gadget or machine without holes. The lump of metal in your car only turns into an engine because of the holes in it: to hold the pistons, let the petrol and air in, the exhaust out and most importantly: the drive shaft. This is, now expressed, blatantly obvious.

Just an add on for the technically minded: imagine, especially when manufacturing an engine, how much more time, diligence and precision is required to produce holes for pistons, bearings, seals and drive shaft than for coarse casting of the engine block.

To take it one step further: there would be no life without holes. No eating, breathing and letting it all out. There was one more thing, which just escaped my mind, through the ears, nose or one of the million pores? Maybe thoughts, or something else?   There appears to be little, if any, recognition of the importance of holes, which is quite peculiar.

The presence of yet another flagrant conspiracy is remarkably evident. However, we leave this pressing subject to be followed up by those who feel inclined and turn our attention to the pursuit of our newly found paradigm. The question about the existence of conspiracies may resolve itself during this process.

As I suggested previously, logically, at the onset of all explorations, stand the definition of terms and axioms. Undoubtedly you agree that in this early stage kenon is too cumbersome to wrap our mind around; therefore holes are probably the best means to facilitate our exploration of the world of kenon. Once we have learned more about holes and adjusted our position of viewing kenon will disclose itself to us.

The Definition of Holes

To arrive at an answer let us remain with the question for a bit longer and let’s consider the following.  Can it be defined by itself or can it only be described in conjunction with its surrounding?   Is the edge, the interface between the kenon and matter, part of the hole or part of the surrounding? Does the change from hole to surrounding happen abruptly or gradually? Has this interface thickness? Does either the hole or the surrounding affect the interface? What is the process?

What is the information content of the interface?

The science of matter considers those aspects already in subjects such as surface tension, thermal and radiation transmission, and capillary effects, skin effect (stealth aircraft), etc., which are all extremely difficult to grasp processes. Looking at the same characteristics from the kenon viewpoint may shed some light on the matter.

What is the hole made off? We have established that it is matterless, what is it then?   Are holes always filled with something? Can an empty hole exist at all?

Are holes reversible and what does one need to reverse a hole, especially if there is no matter available at any given point in time, to turn the hole around?   Do holes always exist in matter and only manifest when they accumulate so we can see them?

Could we call the smallest, the elemental hole the atomic hole, the indivisible hole?

Once the foundation has been laid, then correlations and interrelations need be clarified and formulated.

The Mathematics of Holes

Addition: What happens when you add one hole to another? Do they stay separate? How, if so, do they amalgamate? What holds them together?   Do they become longer, larger in diameter or do they form oblong and floral patterns? What is or what determines the resulting shape?

Subtraction: Can you take a hole away from an existing hole? What would be the result? What would the new hole and the remaining hole look like? This question seems to be harder than that about the sums.

Multiplication: This problem is somewhat similar to that of sums.

Division: That is hardest to imagine.  Try to divide five holes by three holes.

Infinitesimal equations: What happens if you split a hole in half and the remainder in half and so on. At some stage, you reach the size of the atomic hole. What happens then? What if you multiply a hole by infinity?


Once all this has been worked out, the question arises whether the mathematics of holes effects the surrounding.  If the surrounding matter is some sort of gooey, viscose material, one can imagine how holes could change shape and size but what if the holes are in metal or rock?

The Phenomenology of Holes

What happens to a hole after its surrounding has deteriorated? For example: a hole in an ice block that is melting away, or a hole in a piece of wood that is burning? Where do holes go after their surrounding has gone?

One alarming thought came up already: The hole has actually eaten up the material in which it has been lurking. From this follows the dangerous assumption, which would exclude holes from the realm of chorology and even more the kenon: Holes can be hazardous, which are gradually taking over the world. Consider how people lose weight, where does it go? There will be more room for space …where does it come from?

Where does the increase in hole size come from when the hole wears out, let’s say when a wheel starts rattling or the ever leaking tap?   What happens if a hole is filled with the same material as its surrounding? Does it still exist? Does the interface dissolve? Can holes dissipate? Where do holes go once they are filled?

After all this introduction, questioning and philosophising let us commence with some solid definitions.

The Basics of Holes

 At some stage, the theory of relativity, the second law of thermodynamics, needs to be revised. You may be aware that it has been overdue for quite some time.

The First Hypothesis of Kenonics (Monday, 5 February 2007)

I postulate:

“Kenon moves faster than light.”


When you move an object of matter, how does the kenon in the path of the object “move” away and where does the kenon behind the object come from? The kenon in front “disappears” instantly and “reappears” instantly behind it. Neither in front nor behind the object is a progressive state of aggregate that consists of a decreasing percentage of kenon in front nor an increasing behind. The change is instant.

Accepting (for the moment) that E = mc2, we have established that kenon has no matter as per current postulation.


In standard mathematics, everything multiplied by zero equals zero. Zero apple is no apple at all, at the same time the velocity c is (almost) infinite; multiplying with infinite is an ambiguous action, multiplying zero with infinity is one of the few forbidden actions in mathematics. Multiplying with something almost infinite comes very close.

So what does that mean? Is there no energy in kenon? That certainly can’t be true, because, what would prevent it from collapsing? Arches and domes, what keeps them up there?

There is another way of looking at the energy dilemma. If one adds energy to matter, it expands and eventually dissipates into its molecular and later atomic components. For example ice – water – steam or metal – melted metal – metal vapour.

What happens if one adds energy to a hole? Can it be done or is energy only matter related? Is there an orificial energy? Yes, certainly, see above. It must be a new form of energy.

Furthermore, the theorem of relativity postulates that no matter can move faster than the speed of light. Quite obvious this is not true for kenon.


Here is the case.

Let us look at movement. There are two ways of looking at it. The common limited way of observation just considers the object of matter and sees it move. The more conscious observer sees the object move through kenon, the even more evolved may see the object stationary and the kenon move.

The Kenologist, in his holistic way, sees the kenon and object move simultaneously through and around each other, harmoniously.

Pursuant to that stated above, if an object wants to move, kenon needs to be provided prior to that movement in front of this object. The same amount of kenon that is required in the direction of movement needs to be removed from behind the object.

Otherwise, the suction of the vacuum behind the object would prevent any movement. As that the volume of kenon in front and the kenon behind the object is equal, it is evident that an exchange takes place in some unknown way. Just observe a piece of matter move through water. Freeze the water, and the object is stuck.

What follows is that this exchange needs to be faster than the movement of the object. Ever so infinitesimally slightly earlier the kenon needs to be freed in front of the object and also ever so slightly earlier the kenon behind the object needs to be filled prior to the movement. Otherwise, the object can’t move.

Consequently, I proclaim

The First Law of Kenonics

Kenon moves faster than Matter

Commentary 1

According to Einstein’s still accepted and much‑discussed, mysterious formula and its consequential postulate, namely that matter cannot reach the speed of light; thus there is no need for kenon to move faster than the speed of light, as long as it moves faster than the matter it encircles. Maybe, if there is something other than matter that is contained in and moves through kenon then, as a subsequence, kenon is required to move faster than light.  Since Albert’s formula does not apply to kenon, it could move faster than light.  Equally, there is still no evidence why it could not.

Therefore my hypothesis still stands:

Kenon moves faster than light.

Commentary 2

What was the point of my hypothesis? Having been educated and having thought within the paradigm of matter, the speed of light had a substantial significance and impact in defining this paradigm of matter.

Therefore, challenging this axiom satisfied my spirit of discovery.

Kenon has its own paradigm, and we need to learn to leave the laws of the material paradigm behind. Recognising this I realise that my hypothesis has lost its relevance and I am prepared to drop it.

Nevertheless, it has served its purpose of leading me on the path to the first rule of Kenonetics. The Chinese proverb goes:  Always aim for the moon, because, if you miss you end up amongst the stars.

Commentary 3

I have not decisively proven my hypothesis; however, I have conclusively established the above rule.

Through this discovery, light has been shed onto the aforementioned rule of Einstein. Unfortunately, he used a form of mathematics, which is closed to the minds of most.

If there is still any significance around the speed of light, (as the limit of all speed in the paradigm of matter) then let’s assume, if kenon cannot move faster than the speed of light, at least it can move at the speed of light. If we take the reverse of my rule, which would be “matter must be slower than kenon” then it provides a simple answer and illuminates clarity to Einstein’s postulate.

Matter cannot reach the speed of light because it must be slower than kenon.   Yet again, as history has displayed often, never shy away from courageously postulating what the ordinary mind cannot grasp.   As we mature as humankind, the collective un-conscience permits glimpses to those daring to look.

Commentary 4

After calculating all the ratios between matter and space and realising that matter as we experience it is quite matterless, I have been able to remove myself from the matter way of thinking. I realised that thinking of matter moving, appearing or disappearing is very attached to matter.

Matter is such fickle filigree, a structure much finer than the finest spider web. It appears to me now that when this delicate web floats through kenon, maybe kenon remains completely unaffected. Kenon does not need to move away to permit matter to move through it. Kenon is not a different matter, not even similar, it is no matter at all. Maybe we even need a new language or at least a new set of words. Linguists to the front!

And as there seems to be nothing else but kenon and matter (… everything else is opinion.). And as there are no spaces without kenon there is no need for kenon to move and fill them, ergo, there is really no need for kenon to move at all.

Kenon has no speed.

Could we agree on that?

Kenon is stationary.

Kenon is everywhere.

Kenon is.

Could this be the first contribution to the field of Kenonmorphy?

(Interesting observation. Even I went off on an alluring track leading to Kenon moves faster than light the occupation with the subject finally drew me to the above realisation, which is Kenon is stationary. The significant process is that of moving, not the result. The results are ever changing, the process of movement is almost identical.)

Along similar lines of thought of entropy[13] drizzled into my mind. In order to shape matter, we need energy, for example, a car or a battery or a book. The more complexity, the more energy is required. As soon as the product is produced it begins dissipating this energy; it rusts, it wears out, discharges.

Life needs energy; we eat. Inanimate objects need to be repaired. So in order to maintain its shape, formed matter needs a supply of energy. Once this supply seizes, the product falls apart. Matter and energy have an interdependent relationship, matter needs energy and energy needs matter. Who else needs it? If there were no need for its existence, would it exist?

Just to rethink his statement: electromagnetic energy transmission does not rely on matter. But then, magnetism is a result of matter.

So once all the energy has been used, matter is going to disperse into the Greek definition of atomos. So all that is left is kenon and atomos, the rest is illusion … who said that?

Kenon has no structure or order, therefore pursuing the idea of entropy we could say it is at the highest possible level and kenon needs no energy for its existence. What does this mean, constructively?

The interplay of matter and energy is displayed in matter as well as the inherent symptom of change. This is how we experience time, and through observing change over time, we made time a measurable numerical unit of change. There is a beginning of something and then, eventually but with evident reliability, its end arrives.

Time; and we break in pieces and call it years, and nanoseconds. Generally, the amount of time we spend with something is an expression of the importance we place on it.

In kenon, there is no change.  It is the only thing, which is constant. Can we conclude that there is no time in kenon?  And is this the reason why we do nat place any importance in it?

Kenon is the only thing, which is constant.

Can we conclude that there is no time in kenon?  And is this the reason why we do not place any importance on it?



The First Axiom

I suggest: A generic orifice has no content.

Generally, orifices are filled with something, with vacuum, air or water for example. For simplicity sake let us assume at this stage that the content has no effect on the orifice. Accepting the first axiom the mathematics of orifices could be quite simple.

If later on, we find out that there is an interrelationship between orifice and content, adjustments and add-ons can be included. This is very common in standard mathematics. Any other thoughts?

And before you know it, the first mathematical equation is revealed on Sunday, February 19, 2007, when the author suggests the

Perforator Equations

Admittedly, it applies only to a small particular section of the addition of orifices; however, it is a start. Nevertheless, it can frequently be applied as you will find out in a second. The other advantage of this equation is that it has its feet firmly planted in both, the science of matter as well as in kenon. Therefore it can be readily accepted and facilitate building the bridge. Here we go.

The perforator equations are applied when adding orifices of the same shape and area, which are not overlapping and are situated in the same piece of material. As you will find out they can also be used in describing and comparing perforated situations.

We define herewith:

Perforation is the number of holes constituting the perforation, multiplied by the area, in which all the orifices are situated and divided by the common orifice area of one hole. Subsequently, the Relative Perforation is the perforation unrelated to a given area.

For simplicity let’s start with setting up the equation for the relative perforation.


Formula 1: Relative Perforation PR, with the unit [1 / m2] or one [relative perf]       PR = nΩ / AΩ


PR … stands for the relative perforation, with the alternative unit of [1 / mm2] or [1/m2] respectively. Thus, may I suggest at this point: 1 relative milliperf or abbreviated 1 mperf or 1 perf respectively. The choice of units may need some consideration; I am open to suggestions.

Ω …is the symbol for orifice, a unitless expression

nΩ …stands for number of orifices, again, no unit

AΩ …for the area one orifice, measured in square millimetres or square metres


Formula 2: Perforation P with the unit [perf]          P = (nΩ x AnΩ) / AΩ


P …stands for perforation. In accordance with the above, the unit for perforation is one [perf] or alternatively one [mperf].

AnΩ …obviously expresses the area in which all the orifices are situated.

How to apply this formula?

First, you count all the orifices, which gives you the value for nΩ. Then you determine the area of one orifice (remember all orifices in this application are identical), which is the value for AW. For AnΩ you first circumscribe the area in which the orifices are situated and then measure its area with known “matter” means.

Now, how to interpret the result. Let us first consider the equation for the relative perforation. If you have many orifices and with a small individual cross section the result will be a large number, you end up with a fine perforation, like in a sieve, screen or filter.

At the other end of the scale, you will find a situation with a small number of orifices with a large individual cross section the result will be a small number, you end up with a coarse perforation.

Adding AnΩ into the equation adds a sense of qualification to the result. So, for example, if you have a fine relative perforation in a small area and a coarse relative perforation in a large area you can end up with the same result.

This makes sense when you consider a tea strainer and a riddle for sand. In proportion, they can be the same. A chemist who is used to filtering particles of micron size would consider a tea strainer coarse.

A mining engineer used to filtering rocks of coal would find a sand riddle extremely fine. Did I make myself clear?

And here comes another one, PU …the uniformity of perforation.

When looking at a perforated area, you may find areas of higher and lower orificial density.

PU …the uniformity of perforation would be suitable to express the evenness of orificial distribution. Interest in uniformity is only justified once the number of holes exceeds value.


I suggest the following proceeding.

Following several statistical and probability considerations, I propose that we multiply the total number of orifices nΩ with the constant factor of 0.02. The result we call nΩS namely the Standardised Number of Orifices. If nΩS is less than 5, in other words, if nΩ is smaller than 250 then the evaluation of PU does not give a significant enough result.

Next, through objective observation, we select two areas within AnΩ, the area in which all the orifices are situated. One with the highest density of orifices nΩH and the one with the lowest density nΩL.

Then we count the same number of orifices nΩS in each area, circumscribe the orifices and measure the areas of highest and lowest density, namely AΩH and AWL respectively.

We then can define


Formula 3: Uniformity of Perforation PU, a unitless expression     PU = AΩL    /  AΩH


Discussion of result can be as follows. In the case of a perfect uniformity of perforation the two areas AΩH and AΩL would be equal; thus the result of the equation would be one. This is the best possible result. All other results would be lower than one.

In general life situations, we are used to expressing results like this in percentages. So, for convenience sake, we multiply PU by 100 and can read the result in percentages. Therefore, if the uniformity of perforation PU is 1, it is 100%. If not it is not.


And here a few contributions to Kenonism, the philosophy of kenon.

Kenon has a holographic[14] nature

It appears that kenon has a holographic nature when one looks at the divisibility of it. After the process of dividing the divided, individual parts have lost some certain qualities, which were included when they had been together as a whole.

For example, if you divide a group of people, the subgroups contain fewer skills, characteristics, and personal expression than the total. If you divide an apple, you end up with sections of an apple, which is less than the whole.

In opposition, if you divide kenon, nothing is lost. Even the smallest part of kenon contains all qualities and characteristics of the total. What would the smallest part of kenon look like? If one divides the infinite, the result is still infinite. Every part contains the whole.

The Universal Answer

Most of the mathematics will find an easy solution if we accept the universal answer ‘42’. Unfortunately, it does not provide any conclusive progress, because seven holes by five holes could result in ‘42’ too. At this stage I believe, we need to rely on progress because it moves us through the journey of discovery.

Without travelling, there is no experience, and without experience, there is no learning. This is not for the faint-hearted but for those with the courage to step into the famous ‘Unknown’ which could reveal itself as a significant part of kenon itself.

At the end of our journey undoubtedly it is entirely possible and almost inevitable likely that we find ‘42’, like in the paradigm of matter also in the paradigm of kenon provides the universal answer. However, let us not put the famous apple cart[15] in front of the horse. Let us enjoy the travelling.

The Inverse Orifice

Usually, when we see an orifice (hole), the surrounding is solid while the orifice is filled with something of lower viscosity or density.

The reverse is true/applicable, too when the surrounding is of lower density than the filling of the orifice. We are quite used to its occurrence in matter science. We are in fact very familiar seeing, recognising and experiencing them in air, water or any other non‑solid matter.

There they are posts, poles, sticks or masts. Inverse orifices are so significant, subconsciously we have known that all along, that is why we have given them so many different names. Kenonics reduces all those things sticking up into one essential expression. Observing them the kenonistic way they reveal their true nature.

May I be so bold and suggest a new, generic word: the


Distilled from its two words of origin, namely IN‑verse’ and ‘OR‑ifice. This new word inor pronounced [eenor] quite cunningly hides another meaning inside it. If you accept my humble suggestion, and you speed inor up a bit, it sounds very much like ‘inner’.

The Intussuscepted[17] Orifice

This idea hit me with a blaze of clarity while pondering on the inor. For a split second, I could see in front of me the shining path to the brilliant gateway to grasping kenon.

Let me start gently again by returning to the word intussuscepted, which generally is used in the medical field. As explained in the footnote it is derived from Latin, meaning to receive within. In itself, this word bears a significant content.

What I suggest is to place one orifice into another orifice, which demonstrates a suitable application of the word intussuscepted.

Permit me to explain. Along the way, I will humbly ask you to accept only a few assumptions. Please stay with me and do not argue at that time for the sake of the experiment, the possible concurrent experience and its outcome.

So far we are not clear about the interface between an orifice and its surrounding. What we can assume is that it exists as a separate part, not belonging to the orifice or the surrounding.

So, let’s start with placing an orifice Wi (‘i’ for inner) more or less centrally into another bigger orifice WO (‘o’ for outer) so that Wi is completely enclosed by WO and does not touch the interface, which WO shares with its surrounding. This is straightforward, no problemo.

Now let us assume that Wi once placed inside WO does not dissolve in WO but retains its identity.

Thus, to state it firmly, in the described situation Wi does not endure the contact with an interface, because per definition, an interface only occurs as/in the transition between the orifice and its surrounding, not amongst orifices.

In fact, if we further assume that the information content and radius of information absorption is limited to the size/volume of the orifice Wi and if there is no information exchange happening between Wi and WO, then Wi does not even know that WO has any boundary.

Finally, now we arrive at the magnificent situation when Wi feels as if WO is limitless.


Wi feels limitless inside Kenon!!!

Exciting, isn’t it? Now, there is one more thing to do. Imagine what Wi feels.

Place yourself inside Wi and feel for yourself and then start describing your sensations. This is the task, which every explorer has to confront sooner or later. Will you continue along your path into the unknown or will you retreat into comfort?

Then you will never know what it feels to be inside kenon, feeling no limitations?    Please share your impressions. Allow synergy[18] to perform its deeds.

At this point, no one will argue the significance of this situation of the intussuscepted orifice and we that we are indeed in need of a new word. The inor would have been a good one, but let us not make the same mistake as they did with the word atomos.

What about the “ORIFORI’[19] the ORIF‑ice in the ORI‑fice, which logically would be pronounced [oreeforee]. “A rose does smell as sweet by any other name.” Good one.  Nevertheless, feel invited to present your suggestions.


As a momentarily final comment in the intussuscepted orifice allow me to present you with a diagram depicting the above-described process towards understanding kenon systematically and graphically.


The stepping stones to understanding kenon.

Experience the orifori.

Place an (inner) orifice Wi inside another (outer) orifice WO

Prevent Wi to contact the interface of WO with its surrounding and assure that Wi does not lose its identity as well as that no information is transferred from WO to Wi.

Enter Wi and share its experience when feeling kenon.

Describe your experience.

Share your experience with others

Find common parts

Draw conclusions about kenon

What do the Old Fellows say?

The Celts:

The flow of consciousness is the space of nothingness whose pivot is life.

And, as Buddha said when sitting under the Bo tree near Benares on his way to his enlightenment:

The cause of lift… is death.

The chief from Papua New Guinea:

The greatest miracles hide behind the most obvious.



To go back to the place of referral, click on the blue number [1] and so on.

[1] Paradigm, {Author’s comment: conception and framework of a realm or dimension with structure, axioms, definitions and characteristics}

[2] Golem, {Microsoft Encarta: Jewish legend, artificially created human that is given life through a magical formula, frequently took the form of an automaton} – {Author’s addition: initially created to be a servant, through self-discovery, it becomes aware of its power, turns against and enslaves humans.}

[3] Standard Definition of a chemical element: {All atoms have the same nature and per definition cannot be further subdivided by chemical means.}

[4] Saint-Exupéry, Antoine Marie Roger de (1900-1944), French writer, The Little Prince, 1943

[5]hydrogen > German = Wasserstoff, meaning ‘water matter’, More information in appendix

[6] Size of a soccer field according to FIFA {vary from 45×90 metres to 90×120 metres (unbelievable), length of diagonal ranges from 100 – 150 meters almost exactly.}

[7] For the calculation see further down in the appendix, under calculations.

[8] Ionians: one of the three principal groups of immigrants into prehistoric Greeks, about 1000 BC., the others: Dorians and Aeolians

[9] Someone said: “There is order in chaos.”

[10] Democritus, (460-370 BCE. > 90 years!) Greek philosopher, {Author’s comment: demos > community, people; critus > critic > Democritus ~ community critic}

[11] Thanks to Maria who supplied the lingual information on Latin and ancient Greek. Unfortunately, I lost her contact.

[12] Gestalt, { Oxford dictionary “An organised whole in which each individual part effects every other”} – {translated from German “shape, built, outward expression of character, structure or content”}

[13] Entropy, German mathematical physicist Rudolf Julius Emanuel Clausius as part of his second law of thermodynamics, it is a numerical expression for the state of structure in a system.

It increases as this structure degrades and with it, the system returns to an ultimate state of uniformity. In cybernetics; order has the least probability (low entropy) and with increasing disorganisation, probability increases (high entropy).

[14] holographic, {h. phenomenon: every (broken off) section of the holographic plate contains the total information to create a complete hologram.}

[15] apples {Author’s comment: appear to be highly significant in the realms of matter, religion and metaphysics >Newton, Adam and Eve, Merlin and Buddha}

[16] inspiration received by the author on Wednesday, 21 February 2007.

[17] Intussusception, {Taber’s Cyclopaedic Medical Dictionary, Latin, intus, within + suscipere, to receive – in medicine the sliding of one part of an intestine into another part just below.}

[18] synergy {Collins Concise Dictionary: Gk. sunergos, > sun / syn = together + ergon = work, in medicine: ‘working together of two or more drugs to produce an effect greater than the sum of their individual effects’.} – {Author’s comment: in heuristics, a team produces a greater result than the sum of the work of the individuals.}

[19] inspiration received by the author on Wednesday, 21 February 2007.



Hydrogen Atom

{Microsoft Encyclopedia > diameter of 1 × 10-8 cm (0.00000001 cm) and weighs 1.7 × 10-24grams (17 preceded by 23 zeros and a decimal point).   A single drop of water contains more than a million million billion atoms.}    More info: Uranium, weighs about 240 times more than hydrogen with 92 electrons whizzing around it and they never collide.

Volume Ratio between Kenon and Matter in a Hydrogen Atom

Diameter of a hydrogen atom > 1 × 10-8cm (0.00000001 cm),

Diameter of a proton 1 × 10-12cm,

Volume hydrogen atom r3 = (0.5 ´ 10-8) 3 = 0.125 × 10-24cm3 > 5.23 × 10-25cm3,

Volume of proton … volume ratio (10-4) 3 = 10-12 >> 5.23 × 10-37cm3

Proton mass > 1836 x mass of electron, assuming its made from the same matter the volume ratio would be the same.

Volume of electron > 5.23 × 10-37cm3 / 1863 = 2.81 × 10-40cm3,

Volume of all matter  > 5230×10-40cm3 + 2.81×10-40cm3 = rounded up >> 5233×10-40cm3

Ratio between matter and kenon    5233 × 10-40cm3 / 5.23 × 10-25cm3 = 1015

Copper in a Thimble


Atomic weight                        63.546

Atomic number                      29 = number of protons = number of electrons

Number of neutrons = Atomic weight 63.546 – Atomic number 29 = 44

Specific gravity                      8.9 g/cm3

Volume of 1 proton = volume of 1 neutron = 5.23 ´ 10-37 cm3

Volume of one copper atom with no space and electrons neglected

5.23 ´ 10-37 cm3 ´ 63.546 = 332.35 ´ 10-37 cm3             = 0.33235 ´ 10-34 cm3

Weight of one copper atom, electrons neglected             = 12.22 ´ 10-23 g

Weight of proton = 1836 ´ mass of electron (9.109 ´ 10-28 g) ´ 29

= 4.85 ´ 10-23 g

Weight of neutron = 1838 ´ mass of electron ´ 44           = 7.366 ´ 10-23 g

Volume of Thimble >> diameter 1 cm, height 1.5 cm   = 1.178 cm3

Number of atoms in thimble >> 1.178 cm3 ¸ 0.33235 ´ 10-34 cm3

= 3.55 ´ 1034


Weight of thimble content >> 3.55 ´ 1034 ´ 12.22 ´ 10-23 g     = 43.38 ´ 1011 g

= 43.38 ´ 108 kg

= 43.38 ´ 105 tonnes

= 4.338 million tonnes


Volume of copper

After space has been put back in again, this also includes the space between the atoms.


Weight ¸ specific gravity >>   43.38 ´ 1011 g ¸ 8.9 g/cm3         =

= 4.87 ´ 105 m3      = 0.487 ´ 106 m3

487 cubes of 10 ´ 10 ´ 10 metres

A block of units (flats) with 6 units has the volume of approximately 2500 m3. The copper volume would be that of almost 200 of those buildings.


Volume ratio between matter volume and atomic and interatomic spaces using the above results

Maybe this is only correct for copper

Volume of all atomic matter = volume of thimble = 1.178 cm3

Ratio >>> 4.87 ´ 1011 cm3   ¸ 1.178 cm3 = 4.13 ´ 1011

» half a million millions

Uranium in a Thimble


Atomic weight                        238.03

Atomic number                      92 = number of protons = number of electrons

Number of neutrons = Atomic weight 238 – Atomic number 92 = 146

Specific gravity                      19.05 g/cm3

Volume of one Uranium atom with no space and electrons neglected

5.23 ´ 10-37 cm3 ´ 238.03 = 1244.9 ´ 10-37 cm3             = 1.2449 ´ 10-34 cm3

Number of atoms in thimble >> 1.178 cm3 ¸ 1.2449 ´ 10-34 cm3 = 0.9463 ´ 1034

The weight of protons and neutrons are the same for every element. Therefore, packed densely the

The weight of thimble content is independent of the type of element used.

= 4.338 million tonnes


Volume of Uranium

after space has been put back in again, this also includes the space between the atoms.

Weight ¸ specific gravity >>   43.38 ´ 1011 g ¸ 19.05 g/cm3    =

= 2.28 ´ 105 m3      = 0.228 ´ 106 m3

228 cubes of 10 ´ 10 ´ 10 metres

A block of units (flats) with 6 units has the volume of approximately 2500 m3. The copper volume would be that of about 90 of those buildings.


Volume ratio between matter volume and atomic and interatomic spaces using the above results

Volume of all atomic matter = volume of thimble = 1.178 cm3

Ratio >>> 2.28 ´ 1011 cm3   ¸ 1.178 cm3 = 2.68 ´ 1011

» quarter of a million millions


Element Copper Uranium Ratio C / U Ratio U / C
Spec. Gravity G/cm3 8.9 19.05 0.46719   b 2.14044   a
Atomic weight 63.546 238.03 0.267       d 3.7458     c
Atomic number 29 92 0.31522 3.1724
Number of atoms that fill the thimble ´ 1030 35500 9463 3.7515     c 0.2666     d
Volume matter + space ´ 1011 cm3 4.87 2.28 2.136       a 0.4682     b
Space matter volume ratio ´ 1011 4.13 2.68 1.5410 0.6489

The blue letters in the ratio columns demonstrate sameness of values. Compare a with a and b with b and so on.


Amadeus W.

inspired: 13 June 2006
published: 14 July 2014

Why ingeneer?
Want to know about ↓ All there is ↓?
top of page


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s