Nimblebrain Forums - Not logged in
I decided this one needs its own thread. I keep coming across references to voids and empty space, which to me might as well be majic elves and fairy dust.
If we can't perceive anything within a given set of coordinates we call it a void or empty space. Here are some very fundamental problems with that thinking:
You can't lose or gain heat to or from empty space. There's nothing there to transfer it to. Where would the heat go? Does it just wander off on its own? Is heat a particle? Even if it was, how do you "travel" in empty space? What are you crossing?
Put more simply; suppose the universe were just two lima beans and this alleged void or empty space. Put the lima beans wherever you want in this void. We know for a fact that there is NOTHING between lima bean A and lima bean B. Therefore, what must be the distance between our two lima beans? You guessed it! 0!
Obviously there are objects in our universe that are separated by distance. Within this distance is what has commonly been referred to as "empty space" or "voids". But if there is distance, the space cannot be empty. I'm not going to pretend to know what space is composed of, but I know for an absolute fact what it's not composed of: nothing.
Perhaps. Problem may be that when I hear terms like "empty space" and "void" I assume the user means empty space and void.
it's not, but it's something I'm interested in. Just trying to dispel some of my own ignorance.
If a theory is truth, you should be able to explain it to the average schmuck in terms they can understand. I'm an average schmuck.
The specific I'm trying to get to in this thread is not whether or not one should use idealizations as an approach to problem solving, but that an answer that depends on one existing, when you know it doesn't, isn't a good answer.
If you think this is a foolish point of inquiry, by all mean, ignore it.
I think this is an important point. In math, distance doesn't need substance. In reality, it does. Distance is actually a measure of the stuff between one thing and another, whether it be easily perceived, or not perceived at all. If there is distance, there is something there.
Distance or space and time, need stuff to exist. Time is a measure of relative motion. Time doesn't happen in the absence of stuff. There's no such thing as nothing. There's no effect without a cause.
It may seem trivial, but if you get the point, then an origin of the universe that involves a mass exploding and expanding into nothingness makes no sense. The mass couldn't have spontaneously exploded. Something caused it. Something changed. Something moved. Therefore, time was already in progress. It was not the beginning. Something other than what we call our universe existed prior to whatever event brought it about.
There are a lot of extremely intelligent and capable people trying to figure out the truth. I admire and encourage them, but I think many are looking in the wrong direction. I think a lot of mental gymnastics are employed to get around the "no such thing as nothing" idea and the "no effect without a cause" idea, and that it might be more fruitful if they looked into what the "nothing" really is.
I could be wrong, but if I am, the physical universe isn't physical at all. I haven't ruled that out. A software application can just "start". Physical motion can't.
Powered by mwForum 2.15.0 © 1999-2008 Markus Wichitill