The Universe.

[Age]

To me, it is very, very obvious that if absolutely every 'thing' was just 'matter', then there would be just an infinite compression of a solitary piece of 'matter', which was infinitely large in size.

Please explain how a space which you claim is immaterial can therefore contribute to the many objects spoken of NOT compressing into one singular object?

I am not sure how I could explain what to me is just plain obvious. To me, how could there be many objects if there was not 'a distance' of 'space' between them?

Also, the spin of 'matter' creates or causes a magnetism, which then creates or causes a separation between matter, as well as a coming-together or a relative 'bonding of matter', which causes or creates 'objects', which in turn is also combined is the spinning of 'matter', which then also leads to magnetism, which then causes or creates the separation of 'objects', but in a relatively consistent distance.

What is it about this immaterial nothingness which has that effect on all material - to being able to keep objects separate from each other.

I would not suggest that it is the 'immaterial' something, which has an effect on 'matter', nor 'the material', itself, that keeps 'objects' separate from each other at all.

I suggest that it is the spinning of 'the material' or of 'matter', itself, which causes and creates the 'separation', itself. The 'space', or 'distance', itself, is just the result of magnetism, itself. Magnetism causing the, relative, 'repelling' and 'attraction/gravity', themselves.

[VVilliam]

I am not sure how I could explain what to me is just plain obvious.

I see. Have you thought about questioning the apparent obviousness to ensure there are no hidden things therein?

In that way, you could develop a means through which you at least explain plain obvious things to yourself, with the bonus of then having something available which would help you to explain those plainly obvious things to others.

I can share an image of something which at first might have the observer thinking that plainly the objects in the image are separate from each other and obviously there is absolutely only immaterial space separating the objects, yet this "obvious" impression can be shown to be a false one.

[Age]

I am not sure how I could explain what to me is just plain obvious.

I see. Have you thought about questioning the apparent obviousness to ensure there are no hidden things therein?

But I was never presuming nor assuming nor believing anything was true, which would need questioning. I just waiting OPENLY until the actual and irrefutable Truth came through. Which, when 'looked at', properly and Correctly, what became obvious was that 'this' was always Right, all along anyway.

In that way, you could develop a means through which you at least explain plain obvious things to yourself, with the bonus of then having something available which would help you to explain those plainly obvious things to others.

Look "vvilliam" if you still cannot yet fathom that I cannot explain to you that your very own assumption does not fit in with what I have already told you, and which was absolutely nothing at all to do with what I have ever claimed here, then I am not sure how I could explain that I never said anything like that, and that this is plainly obvious. I cannot explain to you why you cannot see what I am actually saying and explaining, other than to, once more, point out that it is because of your own pre-exising beliefs and presumptions, which is what is stopping and preventing you from what is plainly very obvious.

I am not sure how I could explain, to you, that 'space' is only 'a distance' and nothing else, and how this is just plain obvious, to me.

If you really cannot see that 'a distance' can also be referred to as 'the space' between or around things, then okay.

you wrote:
'Please explain how a space which you claim is immaterial can therefore contribute to the many objects spoken of NOT compressing into one singular object?'

Once again, I am not sure how I can explain how 'distance' alone, which is between the smallest of 'material things' has to, obviously, be immaterial. This, to me, to me is just too plain obvious to need explaining.

Also, I have already informed you that 'space', itself, does not 'contribute' to any objects compressing into one singular object. 'Space' is something else, which does not 'contribute' to nor do this here. So, again, I am not sure how I could explain, to you, what, to me, is just plain obvious.

I can share an image of something which at first might have the observer thinking that plainly the objects in the image are separate from each other and obviously there is absolutely only immaterial space separating the objects, yet this "obvious" impression can be shown to be a false one.

Okay.

Will you show this?

If no, then why not, exactly?

[Toppsy Kretts]

i once saw a video where scientist have fount God. and no it was not those creepy pasta videos you see scrolling through your addictive you tube franchise. This video was something different entirely.

The video starts by explaining the big bang and reassuring the viewer of their proof "Of". Then they go on to say that the instance of the big bang was the start of time as we know it, and that before the big bang hade to be forces outside of time as we know it. forms not governed by mass and skin, things that exist purely to "Be", something we have no name for, besides GOD. Except they could and very well have been our existence creator. these forces may have shifted our lives into play. and existing outside of time then we cant possibly imagine such actions. we all have to have an end eventually, time cant go on forever. "Time is limited that is why it is measured"-Toppsy Kretts.

[VVilliam]

I am not sure how I could explain, to you, that 'space' is only 'a distance' and nothing else, and how this is just plain obvious, to me.

If you really cannot see that 'a distance' can also be referred to as 'the space' between or around things, then okay.

I see.

If we conflate two things to being the same thing, this can lead to confusion.

When we speak of "distance" we speak of a conceptual framework for measuring. If we were able to measure the distance between you and I, that distance would be represented by a number. The number itself is not physical. (It does not exist as a physical reality).

However, we mustn't confuse distance with space. "Space" is not "distance". Space is a real physical thing.

[Age]

I am not sure how I could explain, to you, that 'space' is only 'a distance' and nothing else, and how this is just plain obvious, to me.

If you really cannot see that 'a distance' can also be referred to as 'the space' between or around things, then okay.

I see.

If we conflate two things to being the same thing, this can lead to confusion.

Why? What is 'distance' to you, and, What is 'space' to you?

When we speak of "distance" we speak of

Who and/or what does the 'we' word here refer to, exactly?

a conceptual framework for measuring.

So, no difference then.

If we were able to measure the distance between you and I, that distance would be represented by a number.

Well considering that you obviously do not yet know what the 'you' word means or refers to, exactly, then this explains why you would say such a thing as this here.

The number itself is not physical. (It does not exist as a physical reality).

Is the 'distance', itself, physical?

Does it exist as a physical reality?

Is 'space', itself, physical?

Does it exist as a physical reality?

However, we mustn't confuse distance with space. "Space" is not "distance". Space is a real physical thing.

Really?

How, exactly?

[promethean75]

"the instance of the big bang was the start of time as we know it, and that before the big bang there had to be forces outside of time as we know it... something we have no name for, besides GOD."

So we're calling a strange and mysterious case of fancy physics 'god'. It's one thing to say 'yeah there was some weird shit going on before the big bang happened' and quite another to say 'this whatever-it-is that made the big bang happen wants me to love my neighbor, be fruitful, tell the truth, be faithful to my wife, and pay my taxes'.

So how does one get from a simple mechanical causa sui to this elborate anthropomorphic conception we have that we call 'god'? I'll tell u. Becuz we're smaht af and we think that becuz we can conceive of this thing 'god', we must be some kind of special product of it, be connected to it, be like it in some way. So it's our anthropocentric prejudice (vanity?) that leads us to this conclusion, yes?

Not even the intelligent design argument is enough becuz physics and chemistry are already incredibly complex without even considering man. Man is just another example of that natural complexity... not a special case of a complexity that wouldn't exist without him. I mean a fuckin rock is incredibly complex. So what.

Really tho. There is absolutely nothing in the way of evidence in physics to suggest any of this; we only have this mysterious situation in physics pertaining to the big bang and cosmology in general. So nothing else could have led us to believe we are intimately connected to this whatever-it-is other than a long history of anthropocentric conjecture.

Spinoza is the only dude to ever get the nature of this mysterious thing as right as anyone can get it, based on any evidence, a priori or a posteriori. Aristotle did alright too but even he went overboard.

[VVilliam]

The number itself is not physical. (It does not exist as a physical reality).

Is the 'distance', itself, physical?

Does it exist as a physical reality?

No

Is 'space', itself, physical?

Does it exist as a physical reality?

Yes.

[Age]

The number itself is not physical. (It does not exist as a physical reality).

Is the 'distance', itself, physical?

Does it exist as a physical reality?

No

Is 'space', itself, physical?

Does it exist as a physical reality?

Yes.

Why did you not answer my clarifying question above regarding this?

[VVilliam]

What is 'distance' to you, and, What is 'space' to you?

Distance is a conceptual framework for measuring.

So, no difference then.

Yes. There is indeed a difference.

The number signifying distance itself is not physical. (It does not exist as a physical reality).
"Space" is not "distance". Space is a real physical thing.

Really?

How, exactly?

If one were to measure a tree from root to tip, the measurement one takes does not describe the tree, but the height of the tree in relation to everything else.
In the same way, if one were to measure the distance between two trees, the measurement is not describing the space between them. The measurement is describing the distance.

That is why.

When one confuses one as being the same as the other (as you are doing with "distance" and "space") one comes to an incorrect conclusion (claiming as you are, that they are the same thing.)
Claiming "'a distance' can also be referred to as 'the space' between or around things." is incorrect.

[Age]

What is 'distance' to you, and, What is 'space' to you?

Distance is a conceptual framework for measuring.

So, no difference then.

Yes. There is indeed a difference.

The number signifying distance itself is not physical. (It does not exist as a physical reality).
"Space" is not "distance". Space is a real physical thing.

So, how do you separate physical things, exactly?

Really?

How, exactly?

If one were to measure a tree from root to tip, the measurement one takes does not describe the tree, but the height of the tree in relation to everything else.
In the same way, if one were to measure the distance between two trees, the measurement is not describing the space between them. The measurement is describing the distance.

That is why.

So, I ask, 'How, exactly?' and you finish your reply with, 'That is why'.

It is like the actual words I say and write here cannot be heard nor seen. My words are obviously not being comprehended and understood.

Look "vvilliam" you want to keep saying and claiming that, 'Space is a real physical thing'.

So, explain how 'space', itself, is a real physical thing, exactly.

you are aware, right, that just saying something does not necessarily make it is?

When one confuses one as being the same as the other (as you are doing with "distance" and "space") one comes to an incorrect conclusion (claiming as you are, that they are the same thing.)
Claiming "'a distance' can also be referred to as 'the space' between or around things." is incorrect.

you keep saying and claiming that, 'I am incorrect', which is perfectly fine and understandable, especially considering 'the way' you are looking at and seeing things here, but what you are not doing is informing all of the readers here of, 'What is actually irrefutably correct?'

It has already been pointed out here that just saying something does not make it correct.

Explain and show 'us' readers here 'how' space is a so-called 'real physical thing'.

And, do you need bother trying to explain 'why'. you are still a very, very long way off understanding and knowing the 'why' of things here.

[Iwannaplato]

When one confuses one as being the same as the other (as you are doing with "distance" and "space") one comes to an incorrect conclusion (claiming as you are, that they are the same thing.)
Claiming "'a distance' can also be referred to as 'the space' between or around things." is incorrect.

Agreed. The measurement and the thing are not the same.
10 pounds and my cat, Jehosefat, are not the same.
nor are
6' tall and my son.
nor
3,582.02 miles and The Atlantic ocean between Spain and New York.
nor
225 milliliters and the milk in my glass.

I cannot drink that measurement in the last and it is not white, has no taste nor nutrition, does not rot and so on.

[Age]

When one confuses one as being the same as the other (as you are doing with "distance" and "space") one comes to an incorrect conclusion (claiming as you are, that they are the same thing.)
Claiming "'a distance' can also be referred to as 'the space' between or around things." is incorrect.

Agreed. The measurement and the thing are not the same.
10 pounds and my cat, Jehosefat, are not the same.
nor are
6' tall and my son.
nor
3,582.02 miles and The Atlantic ocean between Spain and New York.
nor
225 milliliters and the milk in my glass.

I cannot drink that measurement in the last and it is not white, has no taste nor nutrition, does not rot and so on.

I agree also.

So, there is, once again, no difference here.

Now, as we were, we are, still, just waiting for "vvilliam" to explain how there could not just possibly be a so-called 'real physical thing' between actual physical things like 'particles of matter', but how there is a so-called 'real physical thing' between 'actual physical matter'.

Until then what I have said and claimed here so far has not been refuted.

The Universe is eternal and infinite', and at Its fundamental level is made up of 'space' and 'matter', which co-existing together always is why there is always 'energy' as well.

[VVilliam]

Now, as we were, we are, still, just waiting for "vvilliam" to explain how there could not just possibly be a so-called 'real physical thing' between actual physical things like 'particles of matter', but how there is a so-called 'real physical thing' between 'actual physical matter'.

Please reword your question as it is confusing to me in the present way you have written it..

[Age]

Now, as we were, we are, still, just waiting for "vvilliam" to explain how there could not just possibly be a so-called 'real physical thing' between actual physical things like 'particles of matter', but how there is a so-called 'real physical thing' between 'actual physical matter'.

Please reword your question as it is confusing to me in the present way you have written it..

you claimed: Space is a real physical thing.

I asked: How, exactly?

Hopefully you do not find this confusing.

We are still waiting for this answer/clarification.

Now, to reword my other question here.

If 'space', itself, is also a physical thing, then this means absolutely everything is a physical thing, which obviously means there is no separation anywhere. So, how do you explain this anomaly, inconsistency, or contradiction in relation to your claim that 'space is a real physical thing'?