Premise: Space isn’t a factor. Space doesn’t have structure or substance. Space is really a mental idea of a persons mind that people use to picture the imaginary container real stuff resides in. I’ve found no credibility within the alternative, that space-is-a-factor with structure and substance. Why? Here’s why!
Every experiment has unsuccessful to exhibit evidence for space-as-a-factor.
However the big no-no is the fact that space-as-a-factor violates the very first Law of Thermodynamics. When the standard type of cosmology is true, then your Big Bang event produced space-as-a-factor on your own from practically nothing. Though postulated without any consideration, nobody has yet to generate an sufficient or perhaps credible how that happened or perhaps might happen. Worse, that process is ongoing. Recall the late Mister Fred Hoyle was bucketed for promoting the Steady Condition World which needed the development of matter from nothing – something similar to one atom of hydrogen per cubic mile each year or some such order of magnitude figure similar to that. Hoyle could give no mechanism. Obviously his retort could be that the alternate Big Bang event produced from nothing all at one time, again with no mechanism given, however that was apparently okay while his creation from nothing wasn’t. Well creation from there is nothing NOT okay in almost any cosmology.
I need to admire the audacity of some cosmologists within their popular writings. In a single chapter they’ll condition the very first Law of Thermodynamics about how exactly energy (hence matter) can’t be produced or destroyed only altered in one form into another. Quite simply, there’s no such factor like a cosmic free lunch you cannot create something from nothing. Yet in another chapter they’ll note the way the energy density from the cosmos is constant or how it’s a continuing, although the World is expanding. That immediately contradicts the very first Law of Thermodynamics. Since space-as-a-factor means the development of dark energy and dark energy translates into the development of space-as-a-factor (each creating a lot of other from practically nothing) this is a free cosmic lunch. They – cosmologists – contradict themselves. When they don’t understand they have tried it, they do not deserve to stay in academia. When they realize this contradiction without commenting on same, they should be kicked from academia.
So if you’re promoting space-as-a-factor then you’re promoting the development of something from nothing therefore promoting the First Law of Thermodynamics has been negated even while I write so that as you read. Have fun with that premise.
Motion, and variations thereof (acceleration, deceleration, momentum, rotation, etc.) is entirely separate from space-as-a-factor or perhaps of space-as-a-not-factor. Recall that famous early twentieth century “New You are able to Occasions” editorial that rocket travel was pure bunk for the reason that wide there is nothing for that rocket’s exhaust to push against. That editorial was retracted at the time from the Moon landing! So space travel via rocket-ship can be done even when space isn’t a factor since all relevant forces operate individually from the existence or non-information on space. If a person persists in attempting to link motion and space-as-a-factor, locate an equation which involves motion which has space-as-a-factor among the needed parameters.
Twenty Questions (more or less): If space-is-a-factor…
Why the saying “the vacuum of space”? What ‘thing’ is it necessary to remove from space to have an ideal vacuum? What’s the ‘thing’ made up of? What’s its chemistry? As it is at the front of the nose, exactly what does it smell of? Would you stand out your tongue and taste the ‘thing’ which makes space a factor? The other qualities is there that you simply (or instrumentation) can identify? Do you know the connected particles, forces and fields which make space-as-a-factor strut its stuff? What’s the density of space? If space includes a density then could we theoretically fly just like a bird towards the Moon when we could construct a set of wings big enough? So how exactly does space-as-a-factor affect the standard type of particle physics? Would the World be different today when the factor-liness of space had not existed? If that’s the case, how will it be various and in the event that were the situation will you not really be around to bother with it? Quite simply, may be the factor-liness of space needed or vital for your own personel existence? Could we with this advanced technologies alter the nature of this ‘thing’ property of space by a few physical process or any other? May be the factor-liness of space an origin that people could utilize similar to the way we could mine the asteroid belt for sources? The rate-of-light is slower in glass compared to water, and slower in water compared to air and slower in air compared to space, therefore if space is really a factor would the rate-of-light be even faster than if you can take away the factor-liness from space?
Proof That Space Isn’t A Factor
If space were a factor, then nothing could move. A condition of nothingness needs to exist, plus a condition of something (the conventional type of particle physics and resulting emergent things like atoms, molecules and people), to ensure that individuals some-items to receive from Point A to suggest B unhindered. If space were a factor then your some-things part from the standard model could be similar to 100 people jammed right into a standard elevator (or lift), or say 200 people crammed onto a what would need to be understood to be a crowded bus. You could not change from the rear of the elevator towards the front from the rear of public transit towards the door from the bus. There is no condition of nothingness for anyone behind to maneuver through. You are able to only move because there’s some nothingness that you should transfer to or shove other things into to create room for you personally. If space is really a factor then there’s no nothingness whatsoever within the World the World is entirely filled with stuff (the conventional model plus space-as-a-factor) with no motion can be done.
Anybody who advocates that space-is-a-factor needs to put on the responsibility of proof on their own shoulders and supply a minimum of some solid slab-in-the-lab evidence. Either that or they ought to cease prattling on about this as though the idea of space-as-a-factor was absolute and also the few the character of space was now settled for those eternity. It isn’t settled.