the size of nothing

[Impenitent]

I just had a random thought...

if space is indeed nothing but that which is measured between somethings, one nothing must be bigger than another nothing...

the speed at which one traverses nothing is relative to the size of that nothing...

I don't know what this means, but doing something for nothings sake seems futile...

-Imp

[FlashDangerpants]

You've asserted nothingness as if a thing without particularly good cause.

Consider the song You ain't nothing by a hound dog. In that song, all that is going on is that the phrase you are a hound dog has been replaced with another to the effect you aren't anything else other than a hound dog. Nothing itself as some sort of additional entitiy is not being invoked. My hat does not change character in any way when described as being nothing but my hat.

Likewise, the phrase space is indeed nothing but that which is measured between somethings amounts to space is the distance between stuff.

[uwot]

I just had a random thought...

if space is indeed nothing but that which is measured between somethings, one nothing must be bigger than another nothing...

Or somethings are further apart than others.

the speed at which one traverses nothing is relative to the size of that nothing...

The thing is, space isn't nothing.

I don't know what this means, but doing something for nothings sake seems futile...

It's kinda what we do here.

[Impenitent]

You've asserted nothingness as if a thing without particularly good cause.

Consider the song You ain't nothing by a hound dog. In that song, all that is going on is that the phrase you are a hound dog has been replaced with another to the effect you aren't anything else other than a hound dog. Nothing itself as some sort of additional entitiy is not being invoked. My hat does not change character in any way when described as being nothing but my hat.

Likewise, the phrase space is indeed nothing but that which is measured between somethings amounts to space is the distance between stuff.

is the nothing between the earth and the moon greater than the nothing between the earth and mars?

-Imp

[Impenitent]

I just had a random thought...

if space is indeed nothing but that which is measured between somethings, one nothing must be bigger than another nothing...

Or somethings are further apart than others.

the speed at which one traverses nothing is relative to the size of that nothing...

The thing is, space isn't nothing.

I don't know what this means, but doing something for nothings sake seems futile...

It's kinda what we do here.

if space isn't nothing, but is something, what is it?

if that which you measuring changes position constantly, does the space fluctuate as well?

-Imp

[-1-]

(1) if space isn't nothing, but is something, what is it?

(2) if that which you measuring changes position constantly, does the space fluctuate as well?

-Imp

(1) Space is a container for up to three dimensional things to exist in.

(2) Space can be described or conceptualized as having a system of determining where points in it are located. Space exists without these coordinate systems, but those systems are useful concepts to have. As such, if you can describe a coordinate system that is not stagnant but is variable in its dimensions and origo, then you've got any system, including fluctuating / pulsating / growing / shrinking / egotistical system.

[-1-]

Incidentally: I know no math of quantum mechanics, but a piece of trivia which I picked up somewhere, states that in Quantum space, the smaller a piece of space is, the higher the energy it contains.

Completely counter-intuitive. If a small space includes X amount of energy, ought not two small spaces contain 2X energy? yet they don't, because two times any amount of space is larger than one times itself.

So... if you have not laid awake at night yet, counting sheep jumping fence, then if it happens, solve the paradox of this energy issue.

[uwot]

if space isn't nothing, but is something, what is it?

The only thing that is certain is that it isn't empty. If you look at a star that is, for example 20 light years away, consider that you will be able to see that star at least as clearly anywhere within a sphere that has a radius of 20 light years; there is nowhere in that bubble that doesn't contain light/photons. Do the same with galaxies and it's millions of light years. That's just the stuff we can see, there's also the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum, neutrinos, whatever is responsible for gravity and, theoretically, dark matter and dark energy. At the very least 'space' is a soup of energetic particles.
Quantum field theories of one sort or another: quantum electro dynamics, quantum chromo dynamics and Higgs being examples; are so widely accepted that the principle is generally taken for granted. According to such theories, the fields fill the entire universe and energetic particles are clumps or waves in them. So although we can have a perfectly valid intuitive concept of 'nothing', the reality is that the 'space' of our universe isn't it.

if that which you measuring changes position constantly, does the space fluctuate as well?

Well, if you think of the classic analogy of a stretched rubber sheet with a bowling ball on it to explain gravity according to general relativity, then whenever anything moves, it changes the shape of 'spacetime'. Same is true with quantum fields.
It's all explained here: https://willijbouwman.blogspot.com in cartoon format. Highly recommended by Philosophy Now, no less:
"Former Philosophy Now contributor Will Bouman has just published a beautifully illustrated book which with the help of 'stickman' takes you on a journey through the big bang, relativity and quantum mechanics. Highly recommended!"

[Dontaskme]

if space isn't nothing, but is something, what is it?

It's space.

if that which you measuring changes position constantly, does the space fluctuate as well?

No.

[FlashDangerpants]

You've asserted nothingness as if a thing without particularly good cause.

Consider the song You ain't nothing by a hound dog. In that song, all that is going on is that the phrase you are a hound dog has been replaced with another to the effect you aren't anything else other than a hound dog. Nothing itself as some sort of additional entitiy is not being invoked. My hat does not change character in any way when described as being nothing but my hat.

Likewise, the phrase space is indeed nothing but that which is measured between somethings amounts to space is the distance between stuff.

is the nothing between the earth and the moon greater than the nothing between the earth and mars?

-Imp

You are merely asserting additional nothing-as-something there. It suffers from the same problem as the initial assertion and therefore does not serve as any form of rebuttal.

[Eodnhoj7]

I just had a random thought...

if space is indeed nothing but that which is measured between somethings, one nothing must be bigger than another nothing...

the speed at which one traverses nothing is relative to the size of that nothing...

I don't know what this means, but doing something for nothings sake seems futile...

-Imp

These somethings exist as further somethings with these somethings being the "measurement" between somethings as "limit" which compose the somethings observes space as the foundation for all limit with all being effectively being composed of space and space for the premise of all being.

[Impenitent]

if space isn't nothing, but is something, what is it?

The only thing that is certain is that it isn't empty. If you look at a star that is, for example 20 light years away, consider that you will be able to see that star at least as clearly anywhere within a sphere that has a radius of 20 light years; there is nowhere in that bubble that doesn't contain light/photons. Do the same with galaxies and it's millions of light years. That's just the stuff we can see, there's also the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum, neutrinos, whatever is responsible for gravity and, theoretically, dark matter and dark energy. At the very least 'space' is a soup of energetic particles.
Quantum field theories of one sort or another: quantum electro dynamics, quantum chromo dynamics and Higgs being examples; are so widely accepted that the principle is generally taken for granted. According to such theories, the fields fill the entire universe and energetic particles are clumps or waves in them. So although we can have a perfectly valid intuitive concept of 'nothing', the reality is that the 'space' of our universe isn't it.

ether by any other name?

if that which you measuring changes position constantly, does the space fluctuate as well?

Well, if you think of the classic analogy of a stretched rubber sheet with a bowling ball on it to explain gravity according to general relativity, then whenever anything moves, it changes the shape of 'spacetime'. Same is true with quantum fields.
It's all explained here: https://willijbouwman.blogspot.com in cartoon format. Highly recommended by Philosophy Now, no less:
"Former Philosophy Now contributor Will Bouman has just published a beautifully illustrated book which with the help of 'stickman' takes you on a journey through the big bang, relativity and quantum mechanics. Highly recommended!"

nicely played...

measured through the "fluid" of the atmosphere as opposed to the void of space...

imprecise language...

things in the emptiness of space are in the fullness of particles or waves or ...

can you take half the space if the space isn't empty?

zeno moves

-Imp

[Impenitent]

You've asserted nothingness as if a thing without particularly good cause.

Consider the song You ain't nothing by a hound dog. In that song, all that is going on is that the phrase you are a hound dog has been replaced with another to the effect you aren't anything else other than a hound dog. Nothing itself as some sort of additional entitiy is not being invoked. My hat does not change character in any way when described as being nothing but my hat.

Likewise, the phrase space is indeed nothing but that which is measured between somethings amounts to space is the distance between stuff.

is the nothing between the earth and the moon greater than the nothing between the earth and mars?

-Imp

You are merely asserting additional nothing-as-something there. It suffers from the same problem as the initial assertion and therefore does not serve as any form of rebuttal.

if space is actually filled and not vacuous as nothing asserts itself to be - we are merely changing the definition of nothing

-Imp

[Eodnhoj7]

is the nothing between the earth and the moon greater than the nothing between the earth and mars?

-Imp

You are merely asserting additional nothing-as-something there. It suffers from the same problem as the initial assertion and therefore does not serve as any form of rebuttal.

if space is actually filled and not vacuous as nothing asserts itself to be - we are merely changing the definition of nothing

-Imp

Nothingness as the inversion of a unity into multiplicity effectively observes the inversion of inversion as the prior state to inversion.

If space is filled, and all limits are composed of space, then space is filled with space with the boundary between the spaces (filled/not-filled) observing this as a limit in itself which is space.

[uwot]

ether by any other name?

"Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories