• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Can you prove that the Space is real?

I contend that there is no space. That every pocket of area is filled. With something. Dark matter? Maybe. All mass, all area, in the universe, is filled.


With something.
 
Depends on how deep we want to dig. We could be living in a computer simulation, in which case the only thing I can know with absolute certainty is that consciousness exists.

But setting that speculation aside, it is also possible that at scales beyond our ability to measure, there is no such thing as empty space.
 
The 'white space' you typed is just as much a thing as the letters in your paragraph, as far as the HDD hosting this website is concerned.

Furthermore, the fabric of the universe itself is mostly vacuum energy (AKA dark energy), and thus the metaphysical concept of a void of 'nothing' is simply unscientific.
 
But has anything really traveled through space? How do you know this?

bwhi1apicaaamlo.jpg_large.jpg
 
You might wanna lay off the smoke pipe there, Chong.
 
I contend that there is no space. That every pocket of area is filled. With something. Dark matter? Maybe. All mass, all area, in the universe, is filled.


With something.

Umm....well, no, because you need something like a neutron star for something close to that.

Anyway, what is "filled" by this mass/energy you postulate other than space? Riiiiight. Even if everything was matter, that matter would be occupying space.



But you may still be accidentally correct. "Dark Matter" is the fudge that helps cosmology/etc account for the state of the universe. There needs to be that much mass - or that much of something else with mass-like effects - to account for it.

Meanwhile "dark energy" accounts for the increasing rate of expansion of the universe. Again, it's another fudge. But it would fit your criteria in that it would exist in all space. The debate appears to be about whether it's in cosmological constant form or scalar field form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

But, simply put, it would occupy all of the space that exists if it exists.
 
But has anything really traveled through space? How do you know this?

You typed on something to make that post. If space did not exist, there would not be movement, speed, velocity, etc etc etc.
 
Stupid thread alert!

stupid.jpg
 
Umm....well, no, because you need something like a neutron star for something close to that.

Anyway, what is "filled" by this mass/energy you postulate other than space? Riiiiight. Even if everything was matter, that matter would be occupying space.



But you may still be accidentally correct. "Dark Matter" is the fudge that helps cosmology/etc account for the state of the universe. There needs to be that much mass - or that much of something else with mass-like effects - to account for it.

Meanwhile "dark energy" accounts for the increasing rate of expansion of the universe. Again, it's another fudge. But it would fit your criteria in that it would exist in all space. The debate appears to be about whether it's in cosmological constant form or scalar field form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

But, simply put, it would occupy all of the space that exists if it exists.

That's what I mean. I was thinking about heat transfers from one object to another until they reach equilibrium. Heat, or energy, needs....SOMETHING...to travel through. Here on earth, we can account for it, the planet has an atmosphere, filled with gas. Energy of various forms travel through that gas, either exciting the molecules, or being reflected back as impermeable, or eventually hits solids. Transferring that energy. Why is the same not true in an environment lacking atmosphere or gas?

We know gravity affects light. But we don't quite know what Gravity IS. Could gravity then be voids...spots in space that ARE truly empty, and therefor, provide the path of least resistance, pulling things into them. Nature abhors a vacuum.

Maybe all the planets aren't accidents, but hollow spots in space, creating the effect we call gravity. The larger/stronger ones becoming stars...but this would imply that these hollow spots are also effected by the pull of others....solar systems and galaxies follow a pretty universal orbital pattern.
 
Depends on how deep we want to dig. We could be living in a computer simulation, in which case the only thing I can know with absolute certainty is that consciousness exists.

But setting that speculation aside, it is also possible that at scales beyond our ability to measure, there is no such thing as empty space.
Far as know, I'm the only one conscious....all the rest of you are just programs to fool me into believing I'm not alone.
 
Umm....well, no, because you need something like a neutron star for something close to that.

Anyway, what is "filled" by this mass/energy you postulate other than space? Riiiiight. Even if everything was matter, that matter would be occupying space.



But you may still be accidentally correct. "Dark Matter" is the fudge that helps cosmology/etc account for the state of the universe. There needs to be that much mass - or that much of something else with mass-like effects - to account for it.

Meanwhile "dark energy" accounts for the increasing rate of expansion of the universe. Again, it's another fudge. But it would fit your criteria in that it would exist in all space. The debate appears to be about whether it's in cosmological constant form or scalar field form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

But, simply put, it would occupy all of the space that exists if it exists.
There is of course quantum foam.
 
There is of course quantum foam.

True....


But I think I should qualify my earlier statement. If any of the Big Bang theories are correct, then at a timeless point, all matter and energy existed. So matter does not necessarily require space.

But, that still doesn't under cut my point. At least as things are now, and measurably so, existing matter requires space to occupy. I am not aware of any spaceless matter postulated.




Of course the problem is that we know full well that we don't know the full picture. We just know that the parts we know are correct because we've proven them.

I really wish I loved doing the mathematics. I'd have aimed for theoretical physics. I love the theory but the real work, and the real meaning, is all in the math. Which I do not enjoy...

The sad thing is that a human language can only provide an approximation of what the math says in most instances. Math is its own language, absolute and universal. And it pisses me off.



All that, of course, is why these conversations on debate boards are so difficult. Unless someone is actually spending their life on the edge of theoretical physics, the best they can do is try to articulate a mathematician-author's translation of math into English. I suspect we've rather moved beyond the age of philosophers in regards to space-time.
 
Last edited:
Everyone always scoffs and makes humor of those who are open to the simulated reality theory, and it probably doesn't help that the University of Oxford suggests that "even just to store the information about a few hundred electrons on a computer, one would require a memory built from more atoms than there are in the universe." However, notable astrophysists who are actually notorious for dispelling silly theories have actually came forward and asserted it's very likely that we could be the simple yet complex complex creation of a being we're not familiar with, with the intelligence of which would leave us drooling over ourselves like brain-dead half-bred monkeys in comparison. We share the majority of our DNA with monkeys, and what the course of evolution had produced (humans) wouldn't be enough if the Darwin theory is correct.

Not to mention, there's a clear pattern throughout history with Russia that we've always had. We've always tried to best them at everything and the moon was no exception. The friction and competitive haste between our two countries are still the same to this very day. There are several different notable people with reputable backgrounds who believe the moon landing was actually a hoax as well.

As far as where to draw the line on only believing what you can see, I think it's very important to ALWAYS remain a particular level of skepticism about almost anything. Not limited to just history either. Hell, if it wasnt for people like Christina Hall, we'd be ALL easily manipulated into conforming to our society in the exact way that those in control would want us to. It's happening vastly, but if that was actually happening in whole and not in part, well.. you get the picture...

I always admired those who read texts from history books and learn to question it. Oftentimes the source comes from a distorted reality of what actually happened. Something as simple as our own American history is notorious for false accounts and distorted renditions being taught in schools as fact, only to misinform our youth. Sometimes the history books we read are nothing more than propaganda.

Shifting the focus over towards European history, and most historians wouldn't dare tell you that Hitler is arguably the most lied about people throughout the entire timeline of human history. Even the most honest historians who know this would never dare acknowledge it because of the unwarranted shunning and scornful criticisms that would ensue. All of the outlash would make it appear as if they were attempting to assert Hitler was one of the greatest human beings on the planet, but simply asserting truths and critiquing what has already been deemed as fact is that in itself, enough to shake your head at.
 
Space and time are just innate mental templates hardwired in the human mind serving to order human experience.
They don't really exist, or rather they exist in our experience of reality because our minds put them there.
See Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

Citing scientific theory to dismiss the OP question is merely a perfervid expression of faith in scientific mythology -- the various tentative man-made templates teased out of experience by means of the trial-and-error scientific method.
And this is carried on here by the very ones who dismiss the Bible as mythology in discussions! It's risible really.

Call to mind your feelings about someone quoting the Bible to you in a discussion. That's exactly how anyone who's thought philosophically about space and time feels about your quoting science as regards the OP question.
 
Space and time are just innate mental templates hardwired in the human mind serving to order human experience.
They don't really exist, or rather they exist in our experience of reality because our minds put them there.
See Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

Citing scientific theory to dismiss the OP question is merely a perfervid expression of faith in scientific mythology -- the various tentative man-made templates teased out of experience by means of the trial-and-error scientific method.
And this is carried on here by the very ones who dismiss the Bible as mythology in discussions! It's risible really.

Call to mind your feelings about someone quoting the Bible to you in a discussion. That's exactly how anyone who's thought philosophically about space and time feels about your quoting science as regards the OP question.

In short, if space is infinite, so are the possibilities. In all fairness, all possibilities are even likelihoods.
 
Back
Top Bottom