On Sep 17, 7:34*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
And, obviously, IMHO, he is referring to a space truly "composed of
nothing" and absent of anything even resembling an ether. *And, I did
accept that as the crux of his ponder-ings/point(s.)

Maybe "absence of anything even resembling a structure"
would be a better way to put it. It's pretty clear that
if there is no structure for space, then space cannot
exist. Absolute nothing would necessarily be the absence
of any and every *thing* including space.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Why not say what one call nothing is a reaction to the pressure
of gravity to zero but only on the earths surface
Vacuum is a datum pressure on earth only whereas there are different
datums thruout the universe.
If one could determin the datum of the many datums there still is no
reason that pressure positive or negative has an overpowing
force on every posible content. A case in point is a particle that is
projected within the Earths boundary that exceeds the force of gravity
but still exists in terms of matter un affected by negative
gravitational forces. When the datum for perfect nothingness is
determined in terms of the four forces only then can we equate nothing
with energy contained by particles with no affinity to gravity. All
nonsence probably since no problem can be solved with missing entities
such as particles of resistive particles that have yet to be detected
or what can affect them. A vacuum is just a measure of pressure
nothing more and nothing less with the assumption that all has mass
and zero resistance to datum pressure of our Earth. Lookng at things
in a totally different manner
if there was a volume of nothing in our Universe would it not implode
to zero dimension with the understanding that external forces are in
existance to every point in the Universe
I supply this post purely to be part of the discussion that this
thread now represents without ever being present to conditions of
outer space and thus unable to respond in detail to those who have
intimate knoweledge of such via their interrestial travels where they
had the opportunity to touch to lift and touch with the toungue to
determine the characteristics of all. If I knew some shakesphere I
would enter the first act in detail and then compare that act with
something that would then be comparible to the three stuges which has
nothing to do with this thread if you get my gist. No names mentioned
ofcours but keep a watch to the rear! I have arrived in Rome
Best Regards
Art

Cecil Moore wrote:

The amazing thing is that space cannot exist without
those particles which provide the very structure of
space itself.

One would first have to presume to know what space is in order to
stipulate the conditions for its existence. Ample amounts of
foolishness and arrogance would be required to make such a presumption.
On the other hand reasonable men speculate about what it might be.
The only thing we can be sure of is what it is _not_.

73, ac6xg

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
So if nothing is there, it aint nothing after all?

There is no "there" within the space of our universe
where nothing is there. Casimir effect experiments
have been run on spaces where nothing is supposed to
be. But instead of nothing, they found the quantum soup
which is the space occupied by our universe.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Don't blame me, I never spilled any quantum soup in your space.

Jim Kelley wrote:
One would first have to presume to know what space is in order to
stipulate the conditions for its existence.

We know space exists and according to quantum physics,
nothing except particles exist. It doesn't take a
rocket scientist to conclude that, if quantum physics
is correct, then space must be constructed of particles
albeit possibly as yet undiscovered and possibly
unmeasurable particles.

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1501.html
http://www.world-science.net/otherne...1014_empty.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ic/vacuum.html
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug...of-everything/
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
So you are trying to tell me that if I completely evacuate a sealed
glass
jar it then contains space?

Casimir effect experiments have been run in
a vacuum and proved there is lots of "stuff"
still there even in empty space. There is
no such thing as nothingness, at least not
within the space of our universe.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Ok now yer giving me a headache by explaining an observation on theories
based upon theories base upon theories. In the Casimir experiments, there
are plates or shapes deliberately placed in the vacuum.

Quantum theory goes too far into the theoretical for my taste. It is a
curious mental and mathematical exercise but it reminds me of Leibnitz'
Monad theory of existence. It doesn't help me with antenna performance. Go
there without me.

JB wrote:
Ok now yer giving me a headache by explaining an observation on theories
based upon theories base upon theories.

Welcome to Flatland. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 17, 7:31*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
The discussion on the makeup of the structure was never closed. You
put the cart in front of the horse.

The makeup of the structure is irrelevant to this
discussion. Since there is a structure (which is
something) it cannot possibly be nothing.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

True under some abstract (non-physical) conditions. For example, the
"structure" could be a mere figment of your imagination which is
something, an abstraction, a figment. However, it is not something
which measureable TEM waves could use as an aether for propagation.
The answer lies in the fact that, if TEM waves are present, then
something (the TEM WAVE itself) is present where nothing existed
before. TEM waves need only by their very presence propagagate through
nothing. This does not suggest I am stating that they travel outside
the boundaries of the Universe which you believe is the only locus
where nothing exists, and to which I disagree since empty space is
also "nothing" as defined in this universe. Empty space,in locii where
the exotic paricles do not exist, needs no structure. It is that
without structure.

wrote:
... I disagree since empty space is
also "nothing" as defined in this universe. Empty space,in locii where
the exotic paricles do not exist, needs no structure. It is that
without structure.

You need to update your knowledge to the 21st century.
"Empty" space has been proved not to be empty and
therefore not "nothing".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
One would first have to presume to know what space is in order to
stipulate the conditions for its existence.

We know space exists and according to quantum physics,
nothing except particles exist. It doesn't take a
rocket scientist to conclude that, if quantum physics
is correct, then space must be constructed of particles
albeit possibly as yet undiscovered and possibly
unmeasurable particles.

And with that you feel that you can claim to know what space 'is'.

It must be just marvelous to be you. :-)

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
And with that you feel that you can claim to know what space 'is'.

Sorry, I never claimed to know what space is, just
that I know it's not empty which has been proved.
Space is something, as opposed to nothing.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com