[Deleted User]

>That there literally wasn’t a “before” at all.

According to official propaganda (wikipedia) :

“…increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning”

The problem for these guys then is to explain how time magically became ‘meaningful’. We are not dealing with physics here, but with pseudo-philosophical charlatans discussing the ‘meaning’ of…things.

These guys claim that something happened 6000 years ago. Sorry, they pushed the date of creation back somewhat. Now they claim it happened 13,700 million years ago. We can then go back in time for a long while, until we reach a point in time when…time stops. You can’t ask what happened before because…there’s no time, which can only mean “time is stopped”. And if time is stopped, nothing can happen, including their ‘big bang’.

[John-Erik]

Einstein said: the Universe is either expanding or the opposite. However, he forgot the possibility that It can both expand and contract in different regions.

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

How exactly to defne “universe” though? There’s quite a few ways, and some of them don’t seem too comprehensible. Did you possibly mean that the aether either expands or contracts within different areas?

As a casual aside, doesn’t that seem sorta funny how the word “either” follows the word “aether” in that last sentence? Anyway, I’m possibly mistaken with that thought. How would you personally define the “universe”?

[John-Erik]

Jerry

It is not up to me to define Universe. Mainstream talk about ‘quantum vacuum’. That is absurd. Vacuum is nothing and cannot be quantised.

I talk about ‘quantum ether’. My ether is Fatio’s fast and small particles moving in all directions.

The question: is there a preferred frame? cannot be answered by yes or no. My answer is: a third option is a velocity field, since the reference can have different states of motion in different points in space.

With best regards from __________________ John-Erik

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik. Thanks for your response.

“It is not up to me to define Universe.”

I would suggest that maybe it is, at least specifically for this example, since you mentioned the concept within your previous statement, and there seemed a definition that was implied. It seems important to have the same clear and consistent definitions with whomever we talk with, to avoid confusion and misunderstanding. We may agree upon the meaning of a given word that is already established and converse that way, or we may recognize the exact phenomena that is discussed and theorized, and arrive at our very own accurate definition through observation and logical thought.

“Mainstream talk about ‘quantum vacuum’. That is absurd. Vacuum is nothing and cannot be quantised.”

There is the idea that a vacuum or empty space doesn’t exist. We could look at this a variety of ways. One possible way to identify empty space is to realize it is mostly filled with physical phenomena. Of course, if this is the truth throughout the whole (and quite possibly infinite) universe, is literally impossible to know, since we couldn’t possible space travel around everywhere, or even look through the most gigantic telescopes to observe. We can always only see “just so far”, and then there’s infinity after that.

I wouldn’t too highly doubt the possibility that there could exist countless areas that extend light-years around that is completely empty and contain literally nothing. And if it were possible to adequately view such areas, it could seem conceivable to quantize them, simply by taking note of the surrounding areas and their distances relative to the areas that actually contain physical phenomena, such as even just waves and particles.

What of how we consider empty space that immediately surrounds us? It seems easy to picture empty space between particles, however, would waves entirely consume every minuscule area of space? Also, at what point would the presence of waves diminish and eventually fade away? This might seem impossible within our limited view of the observable universe, though who knows how things might work countless more light-years away?

“The question: is there a preferred frame? cannot be answered by yes or no. My answer is: a third option is a velocity field, since the reference can have different states of motion in different points in space.”

I again want to ask for your definition. What is a “preferred frame”? I looked it up and considering the definition there, a “preferred frame” seems dependent upon the ether. I don’t know if that was what you had intended to say though. Some of your last sentence seems similar to Galileo’s Relativity (the first postulate of Special Relativity), that “the reference can have different states of motion in different points in space.” Would you say you accept Galileo’s Relativity as valid? “That all inertial reference frames are equally valid”?

[John-Erik]

Jerry

Vacuum means void of matter or vacant of matter. Since the ether can transfer the force of gravity the ether must have mass. So, no mass means no quanta. Quantum vacuum is absurd. Quantum ether is possible. They are afraid of the word ether. Therefore they are tricking.

You say empty space between particles. So, you are also tricking and fooling only yourself. Empty space cannot exist as demonstrated by gravity.

Preferred frame is just a mathematical tool for our calculations and cannot represent the ether. Instead, the ether must be represented by a velocity field, v, in that frame. Near Earth the ether is equal to the escape velocity, -11.2 km/sec. This ether representation means that we can use the Galilean transform and do a linear addition of v and c. We do not need Einstein’s nonlinear absurdities, as Einstein himself found when he said: “physics without an ether is unthinkable” after life-time studies of physics. Why accepting a young patent clerk stating: ” the ether is superfluous”?

With best regards from _________________ John-Erik

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

So, no mass means no quanta.

What is meant by “quanta”? That is what Einstein initially called photons, of the “packets of energy”, that I think he won the Nobel Prize for.

Quantum vacuum is absurd. Quantum ether is possible. They are afraid of the word ether. Therefore they are tricking.

How does the word “Quantum” apply or alter the usual definitions of these words? Who is afraid of the word ether? Who is tricking who? And how?

You say empty space between particles. So, you are also tricking and fooling only yourself. Empty space cannot exist as demonstrated by gravity.

I’m sorry, you’re sort of misquoting me, though I probably could have made myself more clear. If the ether didn’t exist, it would seem easy to picture (or even possibly find) empty space between particles. However, that wouldn’t seem quite as easy with a smoothly flowing wave. Also, why would (only?) gravity prevent empty space?

Preferred frame is just a mathematical tool for our calculations and cannot represent the ether. Instead, the ether must be represented by a velocity field, v, in that frame. Near Earth the ether is equal to the escape velocity, -11.2 km/sec. This ether representation means that we can use the Galilean transform and do a linear addition of v and c. We do not need Einstein’s nonlinear absurdities, as Einstein himself found when he said: “physics without an ether is unthinkable” after life-time studies of physics. Why accepting a young patent clerk stating: ” the ether is superfluous”?

Would you say your conception of ether is that it’s somewhat “fluid” and compresses and expands within given areas? Does anyone these days accept the ether that is “rigidly fixed and stationary”? Wasn’t that the type of ether that Michelson and Morley had originally searched for?

Also, since the experiments with the interferometer would always convey the “null” result, where the cause is one side or dimension of the apparatus that shortens, as well as all other objects at least within the vicinity. Though, how to know for sure if the null result instead actually attests that the ether simply isn’t there?

[John-Erik]

Jerry

No, Einstein got the Prize only for the introduction of the work function, that explained the photoelectric effect better. It was not for extending quantum theory to light, although Planck said so when he gave Einstein the Prize. Most people think like you. Einstein tried to find light particles between 1905 and 1955, but failed as he said himself. But there are ether particles. He became opponent to QM and GRT.

Light is an ether behaviour and can be described by waves only although particles seems to be needed for the ether.

I have defined my view of the ether, and that is Fatio’s model based on particles that can explain gravity by a radial ether wind. Fatio was denied in error due to no aberration. However, that can be explained by emerging ether.

Michelson was our most outstanding empirical scientists, who became involved in a scandal in theoretical physics.

MMX results were nor zero, but they do not exist, and MMX is a failure. The ether wind was confirmed by Sagnac, and later in pulsar aberration.

With best regards from _____________________ John-Erik

[Jerry]

I have a question though. Does anyone at all these days believe in a “fixed” and completely “stationary” ether? Wasn’t that the type of ether that Michelson and Morley originally thought they were trying to find the relative motions of the earth through?

[Deleted User]

center of the universe

According to mainstream science, stars can be seen as moving away from us (redshifted radiation). Distance between us and everything around us is allegedly increasing.

If we know the directions in which starts are moving, and assume the movement was caused by the ‘big bang’, then we should be able to easily find the center of the universe? All the motion vectors of the stars point to it? But apparently not?

https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-04/fyi-where-center-universe/

quote : “the big bang wasn’t an explosion of matter into empty space — it was the rapid expansion of space itself”

But what can an “expansion of space itself” (space being nothingness) even mean? How can something that is…nothing…expand. Space is the coordinate system in which matter exists and moves. One can of course play mathematical tricks and ‘transform’ a coordinate system but that’s not physical reality.

And if we assume, for argument’s sake, that somehow “space is expanding”, then the stars wouldn’t be moving. Because, if ‘space itself’ expands, the measuring unit used to measure the distances must be ‘expanding’ as well.

So, as far as I can tell, these people are pretending that two mutually exclusive things are happening at the same time.

1) stars are moving in stationary cartesian space

2) space is ‘expanding’ (so 1 must be false)

They want to use an ordinary cartesian coordinate system, but deny that it has an origin.

Their conception of time makes this double standard even more clear. We are told that something happened some 13 million years ago. This statement naively takes for granted that there is a “time 0”, an origin for the time coordinate or parameter. So the claim that the big bang happened at “time 0”, while denying that it happened at “x,y,z=0” is purely special pleading.

[Jerry]

Hi Juan! Thanks for your thoughts!

I’d say that if the universe is finite, as the Big Bang theory implies, there is obviously a central area. To consider how it is said that the universe within minuscule levels of microseconds after it suddenly started to exist out of nowhere, was only a few inches in diameter. And according to the theory, this “early universe” continues to expand to this day, allegedly around 13.8 billion years later. Why would the universe that started out incredibly small, have a center, though as it expands outward, would somehow lose the center? If the universe expands, wouldn’t it always continue as finite? However, how to define “universe” seems important. Does the accurate definition include only the physical phenomena that exists? Or would it also include the space it exists in, and the time it exists through?

<div>

There is the valid question of, “If the universe expands, what does it expand into?” So there is the further thought that, “if the universe expands into empty space, why isn’t that space also part of the universe?” To answer this, seems to require a clear definition of what “space” actually is. A large variety of possible answers seem available, so there’s obviously some disagreement. What if we were to actually theorize and debate which definition(s) seem most accurate? There seem many variables to consider. There is the idea that space has three, or sometimes even several more dimensions, that combine with time, to join into the “space-time continuum”, which was originated before the Big Bang theory had gained popular acceptance. Then after the Big Bang theory arrived, there was the process that you already mentioned, of how “space-time” warps and expands, while it brings with it, all the physical phenomena within the universe. There is also the type of space that I personally subscribe to, that is “empty”, or a void, that either is or isn’t filled with physical objects and their interactions. This type of space contains mass, energy, particles, waves, light, and gravity, though doesn’t cause or interact with them. All objects have to occupy space to exist.

</div>

You had mentioned Cartesian coordinate systems. How much would this differ with Galilean Relativity? I actually haven’t studied that much math through the years. I probably should though, even though so much is possible to effectively describe through words and concepts!

As a casual aside, have you ever questioned why Descartes’ ideas were called “Cartesian”, without the “Des”? Maybe the first part was somewhat of a surname? 🙂

[Deleted User]

“if the universe expands into empty space, why isn’t that space also part of the universe?”

Apparently their claim is that “space itself” is expanding. I think such a claim is absurd/meaningless and whoever makes it loses the argument. Sadly, these people are not stopped by logic or by their own absurdities.

But following their ‘logic’ they would deny that the universe is expanding into empty space. Their claim is “space itself expands” “it doesn’t expand into anything” “it just expands”. Or something like that.

“Then after the Big Bang theory arrived, there was the process that you already mentioned, of how “space-time” warps and expands, ”

I think these people are also somehow claiming that ‘space’ is ‘curved’ and that’s why we get an universe that is both ‘finite’ and ‘unbounded’. The article I linked tries to illustrate this nonsense using a false analogy.

article : “universe – an empty balloon with dots on it. Those dots represent galaxies. As the balloon inflates, every dot moves farther away from every other dot.”

A balloon is a two dimensional surface curved in three dimensional space. Problem is, our universe is three dimensional, so it needs to be ‘curved’ along a 4th physical dimension. Spacetime is another pseudo-philosophical concept that doesn’t really solve this problem. What they are implicitly claiming is that our three dimensional phyisical reality exists inside a four dimensional phyisical reality. If anything time would be a fifth dimension.

“There is also the type of space that I personally subscribe to, that is “empty”, or a void, that either is or isn’t filled with physical objects and their interactions.’

Yes, as far as I’m concerned, that’s the only space we experience.

“I actually haven’t studied that much math through the years”

My grasp of mathematics is pretty basic. I mentioned cartesian coordinates because they are the simplest system and movement in such a system is what I think a common sense definition of movement entails. Stars are moving (in ordinary space). But then such alleged (ordinary) movement is interpreted in absurd and bizarre ways.

“As a casual aside, have you ever questioned why Descartes’ ideas were called “Cartesian”, without the “Des”? Maybe the first part was somewhat of a surname? “

Haha – good question. I always overlooked that. If I have to guess “Descartes” perhaps means “des cartes” “some maps”? Mr. SomeMaps? – a quick search says that his latin name was “Renatus Cartesius” –

[Andy]

Been a while since I’ve posted anything.

“Empty space cannot exist”

I’m not so sure about that. In my view space is the only thing that physically exists. Empty space has a very unique property of being an unbreakable malleable perfect solid through and through. It is a completely unified state void of , edges, or dimension. And if something lacks dimension, it must inherently lack scale. In a universe lacking matter its total value can only be described mathematically as [1]. A single point. It’s not something that could be observed, because it lacks parts, physical structure and motion.

I don’t think whether empty space exists or not is a serious question. It is not the right way to look at it, in my humble opinion. Empty space is a potential state of the universe, not really an observable element or object independent of matter. That state can only exist sans the observable universe we’re trying to comprehend. The universe we exist in is a unique state of space, because it contains motion, and to have motion you must have unique definable dimensions, or parts, or matter.

Logically there is no reason for anything else to exist but space. Space is a permanent feature of the total universe. The universe can never equal [0], because that implies the absence of space. Logically, that makes no sense. Empty space is akin to a void. Voids cannot be removed, as their removal would be a filled by a void.

It’s very easy to imagine this empty void state of space as endless or infinite. Infinity as we define it in science, arguably (and absurdly) in my opinion, is a unit of measure. We refer to infinite quantities, infinite distances, infinite time, etc., which are all based on arbitrary units of measure. Something tangible has to exist to comprehend the meaning of infinity from our unique perspective, because infinity is a comparison state to things we comprehend as finite. If the universe were a state of empty space the only thing tangible is space itself. Space would only be equal to itself in comparison, so it’s value is only definable in finite terms. Empty Space = [1], because ES=ES, and its state would be singular and absolute. That’s the logical comparative statement.

But the argument here is whether empty exists now. And my argument is that empty space is a potential state, not a thing. It’s not whether it exists, it is whether or not the universe can achieve that singular state.

In my opinion, fundamentally, our universe can only be in 1 of 3 possible states, but never at the same time.

U = [1]

U = ∞

U = [0]

We can deduce logically that, U=[0], is an impossibility. The absence of a void results in a void.

We can also deduce logically, arguably of course, [1] is an impossibility. The reason I say this is because space without parts (matter,) or dimension, or motion, the universe would lack the fundamental properties of physics to allow for anything to happen. If U=[1], that’s all it could ever be. It would have achieved perfection in its existence. It would become a perfectly balanced state with no physical causation or reason to change, short of magic.

U=∞, is the only logical answer that makes rational sense. Simple logic tells us this must be the case, because we exist. Space certainly can’t be empty while we exist, right?

Everything we are is simply a state of space, as difficult as it may be to comprehend. We are made of space, because there is no logical reason for anything else but space to exist. And after 1000’s of years of scientific research, it’s the only piece of physical evidence we’ve observed indirectly to exist. It’s an extremely dynamic ingredient.

And that leads to the most fundamental argument in logic. This is where all math and physics begins and ends.

[0] < ∞ < [1]

That’s the universe.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 3 weeks ago by  Andy.

[Andy]

“There is also the type of space that I personally subscribe to, that is
“empty”, or a void, that either is or isn’t filled with physical
objects and their interactions.’

The issue I’ve always struggled with is the concept of “physical objects.” What does that mean? The commonly accepted narrative laid out in the scientific dogma is that everything is made of energy. And that narrative permeates our global cultural knowledge base as a pseudo-fact, which we see in such things as Star Trek, or Star Wars, or ghost shows, etc. The idea of “Pure Energy” is casually tossed around in science and culture as if it’s a known scientific fact. We’re all made of energy, right?

But you take a deep dive into the real science and what you discover is that there is 0 evidence for the physical existence of energy. None. And the more you look the more you realize that energy’s existence is far less likely.

The word “energy” gets tossed around a lot. We even have many flavors of energy. Dark energy is just one of many, to go along with mass energy, and “mass energy” is equivalent to the real deal “energy”.

In my assessment after nearly 40 years of trying to find answers, I conclude there is no such thing as energy. It’s a myth. It’s not real. It’s a calculation, nothing more.

With that being the case, what is a physical object? It’s not built on energy, which is clear to me.

Space is the only real thing remaining. And that thing we imagine as a void is the only physically real thing we have to experience a comprehensible universe. And if you really think about, we should not exist. The entire universe should be an empty void, because there is no logical reason for anything to exist but a void, short of magic.

The inevitable conclusion I come to is, “space” is the most fundamental physical ingredient of our existence. Space is the only thing that physically exists, and matter is a manifestation of dimension within space, which allows for the independent motion of bits of space. Matter is made of 99% space, and that 1% unknown is the transition of motion from one velocity to another. We experience motion which is really what we define as energy in our calculations. Motion doesn’t physically exist, it occurs. Motion is a state of space which occurs between 0 and 1. And that’s a wide range.

And that’s where I’m at after 40 years.

The universe is infinite, but infinity is the constant of change, where finite is the absence of change. Quantities are dynamic, and scale is relative. There is no such thing as an infinite quantity. The universe is infinite, but also limited by the upper limit of [1], and a lower limit is [0].

Why would we assume we’ve understood the meaning of infinity all these millennia? It has never been defined scientifically, and its mathematical definition is absurd nonsense. Infinity is not a specific number anymore than finite is a specific number. Finite and infinity define the state of the entire universe. Finite represents a universe without motion or change, where infinity represents a universe with motion and change. And that reflects in our mathematics and numbering system as static values and dynamic values.

[0] < ∞ < [1]

Our existence is a reflection of finite points and dynamic values. A state of matter can have a beginning and an end, but the whole of the universe is defined by the constant of change. The universe cannot exist as a finite state, or we would have never existed to observe it. We are the empirical evidence for an infinitely existing universe undergoing continual change, without a beginning or end. The potential for either finite state exists, but that potential is infinite and will not occur.

[Andy]

Jerry, I saw your other post. I hear you.

My views about the universe are unique and foreign. They are also very rudimentary. I try not to get hung on minutia. Aether for example, is of little concern to me. Is it real? Probably. I always come back to the same question. Whether it exists or not is immaterial to me, because I’m not trying to solve any particular problem. I’m not trying to define gravity. I’m not trying to build a rocket ship. On some levels I don’t even care about gravity.

Yet.

I’m trying to understand what the universe is, and what it’s made of. I’m looking for a top level understanding in how the universe works on the most fundamental level. I’m trying to understand what drives its motion.

Where did all this stuff come from?

Matter doesn’t randomly exist for no reason. With that being the most fundamental question one could ask, what animates us?

Suppose someone convinces me the aether exists, and atoms are made of aether particles. I still have to ask, what’s aether made of? Suppose I get the answer that aether is made of smaller aether particles. What’s that made of?

It’s this never ending rabbit hole. There has to be a physical raw material.

The void or emptiness of space is one of the most interesting properties of existence to imagine. Think about it. It would be made entirely of itself. A perfectly seamless fluid but dimensionless solid so to speak. Its homogeneous nature would be incomprehensible. Insert a spaceship into that state. Motion, distance, scale, etc., has absolutely no meaning. As big as you think you are, you are infinitely less than a grain of sand, but infinitely larger in comparison. It’s a huge paradoxical existence when there is no other frame of reference. The concept of motion within empty space is meaningless. Would we experience g-forces from acceleration in a void state? I don’t know, but it would answer a lot of questions if we did or didn’t, right? I suspect motion is instantaneous to any point within a void, but actually going anywhere is irrelevant due to its unimaginable homogeneity.

I suspect there is a lot of incalculable answers in that empty space. Only human reason can touch it.

I’m just rambling.

I heard you in your deleted post. I wasn’t ignoring your replies. I was just trying to explain my view from different perspectives until you possibly understood it fully. Maybe no one will. I do.

[Jerry]

Hi Andy! Thanks for your response! (Your thoughts printed in italics.)

The issue I’ve always struggled with is the concept of “physical objects.” What does that mean? The commonly accepted narrative laid out in the scientific dogma is that everything is made of energy. And that narrative permeates our global cultural knowledge base as a pseudo-fact, which we see in such things as Star Trek, or Star Wars, or ghost shows, etc.

Of course, countless words have multiple definitions. There seem inherent complications with giving the word “physical” a one and only conclusive definition. For instance, the particles protons, neutrons, and electrons combine to create atoms. It is often said that atoms consist mostly of “empty space”, though is this possibly the complete truth, since various waves, such as the Cosmic Microwave Radiation, may seem to permeate all of space that is currently observed? Could we consider these subatomic particles as “energy” though? Could these particles instead have more of a dense material structure? Actually though, electricity (which consists of electrons that flow through the ions that have “temporarily permanent” nuclei) is sometimes considered a type of energy. Typically, objects that we have the capability to apprehend through our senses, we consider “physical”. However, how to know for sure the reliability of our senses” is a complete other topic to discuss. 🙂

The idea of “Pure Energy” is casually tossed around in science and culture as if it’s a known scientific fact. We’re all made of energy, right? But you take a deep dive into the real science and what you discover is that there is 0 evidence for the physical existence of energy. None

What of “energy” released through atomic explosions? What exactly this type of “energy” consists of is definitely debatable. Actually, the phrase “pure energy” has been used to explain what the atomic bomb releases. Since all the other involved particles that compose the atom stay “in check” and don’t alter their structure, and may actually recombine into a variety of other smaller atoms, what of this “energy”, of explosions that generate massive levels of heat and light? This “pure energy” that is spoken of, doesn’t seem to have any type of “charge”, positive or negative. If this type of “pure energy” is actually released, where does it go when all the heat and light fades away? Does it regenerate into particles and atoms? Is that where these effects originated? If so, what exactly is the light and heat? Does the release of these diminish the level of particles and atoms present? Anyway, these ideas discussed thus far seem sufficient to converse for the current time, to ask more questions, and provide possible answers, and we could progress to the second half later, if that’s okay. Actually, however you want to approach this is cool with me. 🙂

• This reply was modified 7 months, 3 weeks ago by  Jerry.

[Andy]

The meaning of physically real is most definitely a topic of debate. Just caught an article the other day where some scientists are claiming physical reality is an illusion. Things like that strike a chord with me, and then I find myself here.

We sense the world around us through motion. That’s clear. To us, a stapler or cup is physically real. Get into the quantum level though, and the atoms aren’t even touching one another. Go deeper into the atom and it’s mostly space and whatever else exists inside it is unknown. Smash ionized atoms (or protons) together inside a particle accelerator and all that remains are splats on a sensor. There’s no debris. It’s not even vaporized. It’s just gone. Photons also disappear on impact. Their motion gets transferred. Motion is energy as near as I can assess. Without motion, nothing can happen. Time can’t even be perceived without motion because no change could occur. Motion is everything.

But you can’t have motion without stuff. Something physical has to move from A to B.

And that’s the question. What is matter physically made of?

I can only see one plausible answer.

Space.

Why would anything else but space exist?

The big bang assumes a physical object happened to exist independent of the nothingness it apparently existed within. They call it energy, surrounded by nothingness, or a void?

I don’t think so. I don’t buy it. A void must always exist, if nothing exists. That void is space. The logical conclusion is that a void is the only possible thing that can exist, or space, but a void is an unstable state. A void is a finite condition with a value of [1]. It is completely homogeneous. Motion and time have no meaning in a dimensionless void.

I’m not suggesting the void ever existed, but I am suggesting it has potential to exist. And that’s why I suggest that this is the most accurate mathematical term to describe the universe. [0] < ∞ < [1]. We’re in the middle.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and neither can a void.

The universe is akin to crumpled piece of paper, only 3-D. In my humble opinion. In its crumpled state it represents the comprehensible universe. Its value is ∞. Smooth it out, and it’s an incomprehensible static void. Its value is [1]. Destroy it, and its value is [0].

Matter is made of space.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 3 weeks ago by  Andy.

[Andy]

This of course comes down to the meaning of nothing, which is a topic that really isn’t discussed in science. Its meaning is assumed, yet debated on many levels. In math nothing paradoxically has a value, 0. 0 is really an absence of value, but not itself a tangible value. In physical reality nothing does not equal 0. Nothing is an absence of something. Nothing is an impossible condition in the universe, because that would imply that not even a void would exist. Can I have 0 physical dollars in my my hand in physical reality? Can I have negative physical dollars in my hand in physical reality? The answer is no in either case in physical reality. Something either exists or it doesn’t. I either have a dollar in my hand or I don’t. Physical reality is an absolute condition. Something cannot not exist in the negative. Relative to some arbitrary reference point we can imagine negative, but negative cannot be a physical reality. Negative is simply an opposing state from a specific vantage point.

And the bottom line to physical reality here is, you cannot get something from nothing. Something must come from something else. The absence of existence cannot spawn existence, short of magic. The idea that space and time was created is nonsense. In the absence of matter, all you have is a void, which is space. Technically, as I see it, there is no such thing as empty space. There is ONLY space, which itself is a thing, and which is in a state of motion and chaos. And that’s most likely the way it has always been, because change is a constant. Empty is not a thing or term for space. In the absence of matter space is 100% full of space, or 100% potential energy. And as I also suggest, should the universe ever achieve [1], I think it would be quite content with its balance. We wouldn’t exist.

[Deleted User]

Replying to Andy

Andy:What is matter physically made of? I can only see one plausible answer. Space.

That sounds hardly plausible to me. Matter is the stuff that exists in space. It is different from space. Matter is something – space is nothing.

Andy:The logical conclusion is that a void is the only possible thing that can exist

I’m not seeing how that follows. There’s matter, and matter moves through space, which must be empty to allow matter to move.

[Andy]

I sure wish we could edit these posts.

I did not mean this:

Something cannot not exist in the negative.

I meant this:

Something cannot exist in the negative, or negatively.

[Andy]

Andy:What is matter physically made of? I can only see one plausible answer. Space.

That sounds hardly plausible to me. Matter is the stuff that exists in space. It is different from space. Matter is something – space is nothing.

According to mainstream science, space-time is a medium that matter exists within, and certainly not nothing. And also according to mainstream science, neither space nor time existed in the past. It was created at the birth of the universe.

Whether or not anyone subscribes to the theory or not isn’t the point. The point is science definitely does not view space as nothing. And to that point, I agree. Space is not nothing, space is the only something that physically exists. Matter is dimensionless space in a temporary collapsing dimensional state.

Something I saw as a distinct possibility many years ago is that we should be able to manufacture matter out of space, because space in my view is a fundamental building block of matter. Space is the only physical ingredient that exists. Under the right condition we should be able to coax space into a somewhat stable dimensional point of existence and set it in motion.

As Big Think reports, in early 2022, a
group of researchers created strong enough electric fields in their
laboratory to level the unique properties of a material known as
graphene. With these fields, the researchers were able to enable the
spontaneous creation of particle-antiparticle pairs from nothing at
all. This proved that
creating matter from nothing is indeed possible, a theory first proposed
by Julian Schwinger, one of the founders of quantum field theory.

Do you believe something can come from nothing?

I don’t.

“Nothing” is a complete absence of physical reality, and literally impossible to conjure. Space is a permanent reality. It cannot be removed from existence.

In my humble opinion, researchers proved beyond any reasonable doubt, space is physically real and the primary physical ingredient of matter. Matter itself is not real in the physical sense. Matter is a temporary state of space. It is a dimensional point in motion within dimensionless space. That state of matter can be created or destroyed, but the underlying space from which it was formed cannot. Dimension and motion can go to 0, but the underlying space always maintains a maximum cumulative potential value of [1]. For a lack of a better descriptor, space is pure potential energy, and matter is the released kinetic energy of that potential.

Andy:The logical conclusion is that a void is the only possible thing that can exist

I’m not seeing how that follows. There’s matter, and matter moves through space, which must be empty to allow matter to move.

There are many around here that believe matter is the only thing that exists, and space itself is tiny bits of matter. They claim space is built on ether particles. They would argue empty space does not exist. We traverse particles from A to B, not space.

My argument, which is the culmination of about 40 years of asking stupid questions to those people who are much smarter than I, is that a void is the only logical thing that can exist. We should not be here. Matter should not exist. All the universe should be is a motionless, endless, dimensionless void. Why would we assume anything but that as the most natural state of existence? Why are we here? What are we made of? What is matter made from?

Clearly we exists, but how?

The only thing I can see with absolute certainty that must exist, is space. We are a residual temporary byproduct of physical space. Matter is a state of physical space. We experience the entire universe through motion, which is not something that physically exists, it occurs.

That’s what makes sense to me.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by  Andy.

[Andy]

And then lets look at this concept of infinity, something I feel we have woefully incorrect.

Imagine the universe analogous to a golf ball, temporarily ignoring the fact that it has a physical dimension and divisible limitations.

GB=[1]

That golf ball can be in 1 of 3 states.

It can exist at [1], or not exist at [0].

Between [1] and [0] we have an infinite number of possibilities, so we would imagine. However, that’s not entirely true. If we start chopping it up into pieces we would eventually realize that while the number of pieces is growing, a finite number is always left behind in the aftermath. No matter how fast we chop those little pieces in half, once we stop chopping, that quantity of chopped pieces is always finite. More significantly though, the sum total of all the pieces is always [1].

What I came to realize after decades of trying to wrap my head around the infinite, is that there is no such thing as infinite quantities in the physical sense. Measurements are by definition, quantities of units. We can easily imagine there being an endless possible number of units in any measurement, but in actual reality quantities are always a time dependent process. The number of anything we measure must be bound to the concept of time, including lengths. Quantities are an emergent property of our physical reality. There is no such thing as a physical infinite quantity. That does not exist at any given moment in time. All quantities are finite when the clock stops.

If you look at it in that manner, infinity must be bound to change, and finite must be bound to the absence of change.

Looking at the universe from that perspective, a completely empty universe void of all matter cannot be defined as infinite, irrespective of the fact that it fits with the non-scientific colloquial meaning as endless. The reasoning is pretty simple. Measurements are arbitrarily derived from random units that only have meaning to us physically. A universe absent all matter, including us, only possesses one single arbitrary but meaningful point of reference, itself. U=U, which must be defined as a value of [1], because U/U=[1]. The concept of endlessness is derived from literature and abstract thought, but units of measure are time dependent and physically real to our sense of reality. Quantities can only be defined as a rate of change over time. Sure, I can hold a single apple in my hand, but the true reality is that that 1 apple is a temporary state of matter. That’s as true for the 1 apple in my hand as it is for all apples in the universe. The total quantity of apples in the universe is either in a state of expansion, or contraction.

So now I come back to this rudimentary statement in math and logic.

[0] < ∞ < [1]

The universe is infinite, not because it is endless, rather it is undergoing the constant of change. It is not perpetual, it is persistent. It cannot have a beginning, or value of [1], because it cannot have an end, or value of [0]. To reach either extreme would be the end of reality as we comprehend it for all eternity, because change would cease to exist. Without change there is no physics.

[Andy]

And that’s why the Big Bang is shockingly absurd, because it removes the primary catalyst of its own hypothetical origin, time, or more accurately, change. It also assumes the existence of something that has never been proven to exist as a real substance or physical reality, energy. The Big Bang is nothing short of magic, or in the more religious theme from where it was proposed, a miracle.