Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    1.0   Properties of the space proposed by the mathematicians

    One bright mathematician gives us a rundown of the properties he believes space has:

    " 1. One Space must be Infinite, Eternal and Continuous. (As boundaries, creation,
       and particles require two things.)

       2. Space is a nearly rigid wave-medium.

       3. The wave velocity (velocity of light c) varies with both the wave-amplitude
       (causes charge/light) and wave-density (square of wave-amplitude, causes
       mass/gravity)."  [1]

    You should be able to recognize a wave theorist by now (meaning a dissident) simply because of the strategic adjectives he
    uses to describe space: rigid, finite, continuous. The official version of Mathematical Physics is that space is both rigid and
    flexible, both finite and infinite, and both quantized (made of discrete components):

    "The fundamental property of space is that its points form a 3-D manifold." (P 84)  [2]
    " Space is a region of 3-D in linear quantities" (p. 25) [3]

    [Weyl doesn't have the foggiest clue what he's talking about. He mixes physical (3-D)
     with mathematical (quantities). How many numbers fit in my shoe box, Herr Hermann?]

    Another mathematician argues that

    " Physicists today define the vacuum as whatever is left in a region of space when
       it has been emptied of everything that can possibly be removed from it by experi-
       mental means. The vacuum is the experimentally attainable void." [3]

    Others prefer to leave the word space undefined and just move directly to the experimental phase:

    " Space is one of the few fundamental quantities in physics meaning it can't be
       defined via other quantities because there is nothing more fundamental known at
       present. Thus, similar to the definition of other fundamental quantities (like time and
       mass), space can be explored via measurement and experiment."  [4]

    Relativists like to do 'science' like this. They skip over the strategic definitions because this requires that they use their brains.
    They would rather just tell you that their definitions are rigorous and then move on to tell you about their religion. I just wonder
    how the mathematicians will manage to measure a chunk of space on the lab table.

    Others tell you that space has physical properties such as being able to interface with time and be bent:

    " scientists now find that space and time cannot be entirely separated. In addition,
       space is found to have physical properties including intrinsic curvature which
       varies according to mass distribution." [5]

    We either have a fatal communication problem or the mathematicians are off their rockers.In the foregoing section we argued
    that space is not an object and is not made of particles. But then if space is not a thing, what do we propose in the alternative?
    What is space?


    2.0   Inferring the properties of space intuitively

    Let’s begin by describing some of the properties of space.

    In 1964, a team of Bell Labs physicists discovered (quite by accident) the background radiation, the alleged remaining fizzle
    of the Big Bang explosion coming towards us from everywhere in space. It appeared that the enormous heat generated in the
    Big Bang explosion had cooled down after 15 billion years of expansion to near absolute zero. However, heat radiation
    emanates from matter, not from space. Devoid of matter, space is neither hot nor cold. For example, assume you wanted
    to measure the temperature of empty space. By empty, I mean devoid of matter (other than you and your thermometer, of
    course). You are out there in the vacuum of endless Universe alone with a thermometer in your hand. You notice that the
    thermometer measures a value greater than absolute zero, the coldest temperature possible. But a thermometer measures
    atomic and molecular vibrations, and you and your thermometer are the only atoms around. Therefore, regardless of the
    method you use, you will always be measuring the temperature of yourself. A vacuum sizzling with 'energetic particles' is
    inconsistent with a space that is alleged to be temperature-less.

    " Space exists as a wave medium for the propagation of quantum waves described
       by a scalar wave equation."

    Throughout history many have voiced the belief that space is infinite. It is only natural to regard as infinite that which we
    can’t see the edge of. Nowadays we have included in our vocabulary the space-time continuum, a term that has become
    popular in science fiction novels. Is space infinite? Is space continuous?

    The words infinite and continuous are adjectives and can only be used in the context of objects. Consequently, before
    we can assert whether space is infinite or continuous we must first settle whether space qualifies as an object for the
    purposes of Science. Is space a noun? Does space exist? Or is space merely a figment of our imagination?

    In order for something to qualify as an object it must be amenable to visualization in a single frame or image. We should
    be able to draw or take a picture of a genuine noun. In order for an object to exist it must be contained within space, but
    in the case of space itself we’re willing to make an exception; any medium will do.

    Considering these specifications in light most favorable to space, it doesn’t seem to hold up to the definition of the word
    object. We cannot even begin to imagine the shape of space because we cannot imagine what can possibly contain space.
    Space cannot be depicted by dimensions nor can we conceptualize its tilt. Therefore, if continuity is a property we associate
    with objects and space is the entity that interrupts the continuity of matter, it seems more appropriate to talk of space in
    terms of discontinuity. If all objects are by definition continuous (made of a single piece), space is its antithesis: total
    discontinuity. Notice that we do not have to qualify this statement in terms of whether matter exists or not because matter
    does not interfere with space in any way. We cannot even conceive of interrupting something that is not continuous to
    begin with. Were vacuum to be continuous, matter would have the ability to displace or divide space by its mere presence.
    The observed relation is that space apparently has the property of interrupting the matter continuum, but matter is incapable
    of interrupting the space dis-continuum, a one-way phenomenon that would answer why we cannot imagine the shape of
    space or what could possibly contain it. Does this mean that tangibility is a one way street?

    It is intuitively clear that space has no muscle to push matter aside from the volume matter occupies either. Space is neutral,
    exotic; it doesn’t interface with matter at all. Matter occupies space without displacing or touching the void. In this sense,
    matter doesn’t really occupy space in the sense that a fish occupies the sea by displacing water. Occupy tacitly implies
    displacement and, hence, the word developed as a verb. Now we have to reclassify occupy as an adjective to include a
    provision for simultaneous coexistence: superposition of matter and space. It follows that space has no authority to
    interrupt the matter continuum either. A noun does not owe its shape to space. If a noun wants to be 10 dimensional, or
    infinite, or continuous, space doesn’t care. Space can handle as many dimensions as matter wishes to throw at it. That's
    why it is absolutely ludicrous for particle mathematicians to claim that they were able to create matter from the void in their
    accelerators. Clearly, there is much that these mathematicians don't understand about Physics and about what is occurring
    inside the vacuum chambers.

    Democritus carried out a thought experiment 2,500 years ago in which he divided objects to the point where they could be
    divided no more. He called this hypothetical result indivisible, or atom. But can Democritus divide what is not a noun? Can
    space be sheared? Continuity implies that we can at least conceptualize division, another prerequisite of which is existence.
    Discontinuity, instead, is division itself, non-existence, gap. Regardless of how many times Democritus chops his noun,
    each piece occupies space. Meanwhile, space eludes his axe. (Those who believe otherwise have the burden of identifying
    the mystical chasm into which matter disappears.) In real life space is immune to multiplication and division, and, if Physics
    defines addition and subtraction as an exchange of positions, immovable space cannot be ‘stolen’ either.

    Space doesn’t appear to fit our definition of process either. Space is not a noun-verb, the product of matter in motion. Space
    doesn't seem to move or to do anything, nor can we establish our position using space as a reference. Only things constituted
    by discrete components can be conceptualized as being finite and in motion. Space is immeasurable because it is intangible
    and thus incapable of being ensnared.  Immeasurable and indivisible characterize that which has nowhere to move into. But
    then space is the only intangible that is external to matter and that does not arise as a process originating inside the brain.
    From this perspective space can be likened to a circle, a ‘physical’ type of intangible. Nouns owe their motion to the
    generosity of this extrinsic medium; no other intangible is this powerful. Further, a given volume of space can be 'used' by a
    single unit of matter at a time, a structure-related  property denied to other intangibles. Thus, it can be argued that space is
    the only intangible that can be said to exist, to have some sort of ‘physical’ presence.

    I point out, however, that space ironically has existence only in the presence of what exists. We become cognizant of space
    through the presence of matter. Without the tiny, spherical fishies floating around the black ocean, space shows what it really
    is: nothing. We also note again that it takes matter to dislodge matter from a given region of space; the indifferent vacuum has
    no authority to push matter around. Without a structure, space is undefined. It is structure that gives space meaning. Imagine
    if you can the Universe without matter. Define space in this context. What exists if not matter? Ultimately it comes down to a
    definition: we must define what nothing is. Let us summarize the key properties of space we have deduced so far:

    •        Space is transparent; there are no other examples of matter that are perfectly transparent.
    •        Space is not a noun; it is dimension-less and, consequently, immeasurable.
    •        Space has no shape.
    •        Space is intangible; it does not rub against matter nor does it generate friction.
    •        Space is totally discontinuous; it is the absence of matter. Matter cannot interrupt space.
    •        Space is indivisible. (In contrast, we can divide a field).
    •        Space is not a verb; it has nowhere to move into and nothing to displace.

    But what do these characteristics describe? What is space if it is not a thing? Relativists qualify space as nothing. But they
    define nothing as ‘no thing’, the opposite of something. Something is that which we can touch or see. So nothing or space is
    simply that which we can touch or see. How then is space warped and pushes up against things like planets if we cannot
    touch it. How is it possible for nothing to be 10x40th  stiffer than steel?
What properties
does space
really have?
Space is tangible like
love, opaque as justice,
and continuous like the
air you breathe.


Of course space is many
times stiffer than steel, Bill.
Otherwise we wouldn't be
able to make waves in it.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008