owl

Zapatos: No. Empirical science is about observable phenomena. Only the “stuff” in space (including the effects of invisible forces) is observable, and we know that there is way more space in between things than the volume of observable things. This applies to subatomic “particles” and the space between them and to cosmic scale space between observable bodies. Space is emptiness on all scales including infinite.There is no “wall out there,” and if there were there would only be more empty space beyond it. The infinity of space needs no explanation. What “end,” as above, requires the explanation. The question, “What lies beyond?” is an inevitable question unless one lives contentedly in a box (of whatever "size") that is his/her “world” and doesn’t care to contemplate “the beyond.” There is no logic in a “therefore” concluded from false premises. That there can be be no end of space is a-priori knowledge, not in need of empirical data for verification. (Look into the a-priori category of epistemology.) Self evident and logically irrefutable. Will someone please explain the boundary and then what is beyond it, please.

How about addressing the logic of what I said? There can be no end of space because whatever limit is proposed must be explained ontologically (What is it?), and then one must contemplate what lies beyond such a proposed boundary. You have not thought this through. It it is obvious to anyone who has given it serious thought. I do not know what lies beyond our cosmic horizon (as far as we can see.) I do know that there can be no "end of space" (as above) no matter what exists in that space, if anything. This is a reasonable statement of my ignorance. Btw, I am also completely ignorant of the Greek language and a multitude of other fields of knowledge in science, literature, etc. But I have contemplated the question "How big is the universe?" since I was old enough to wonder about it... and have studied cosmology all my adult life, so the above is not just spontaneously spouting off or "shooting from the hip." So where is the fault in the logic as stated again above? DrRocket: You are obviously unfamiliar with the credentials of the above attendees and the content of their papers. The conferences have always addressed the ontology of spacetime in the context of general relativity, the latter being the specialty of the attending scientists in respectful dialogue* with the attending philosophers of science, specializing in ontology. (*Perhaps a foreign concept to you.) Maybe you should read a few of the papers presented by the participating well credentialed scientists before assuming that no presenters have any "knowledge of the actual content of the theory." I recommend Dennis Deiks' two volumes of compiled papers in "The Ontology of Spacetime." (No, I have not read both volumes in entirety, but have read a fair sampling. One such paper, linked by Spyman in the Ontology of Spacetime thread would be a good place to start. (Minkowski's space-time: a glorious non-entity.) Case in point of your last statement above: Your first statement assumes spacetime as an established fact precluding the whole ontological inquiry as to what, exactly "it" is. The "language of the subject" (what "it" is equipped with, etc.) has the cart before the horse... what it is as a prerequisite to understanding "its" specific properties and 'equipment.' What "has grooves or ruts?" Don't you think this is a relevant question to ask, even if it is mere ontology? You didn't even address what I said above your matter-of-fact judgment of falsehood. How false? Of course specific volumes of space can be designated, but there is always more space "outside the box" so defined. Beyond any sphere of designated size/diameter is the space outside the sphere. You can keep expanding the size of the finite sphere all you want, and there will still be more space, infinite space beyond your sphere of finite size. And you continue to assume "space-like slices of spacetime " as entities, parts of the entity spacetime, as if the debate is over and spacetime is now established as such an entity. This is what happens when scientists are weak in (or have no understanding at all of) ontology. The consensus about spacetime you keep hammering on does not exist. This is "hysterical,"... to dismiss out of hand all discussion of what spacetime actually is, if anything, and go on assuming "its" existence as an entity and simply ignore the ontological debate. An afterthought on the relevance of philosophy to science... Here is Wikipedia's definition/intro to epistemology: The claim that the study of how we know what we know is irrelevant to science is not only laughable, it is a pathetic case of narrow mindedness. And the Feynman quote does not compliment the intelligence of scientists. I would never call scientists bird brains, which is what the quote implies.

Logically, if space is finite it has an end or boundary or wall... a limit of some kind. I simply asked two questions about that, neither of which you have answered. What is the nature of such a limit/end/boundary? What is beyond said limit? If nothing... fine, more empty space, infinite space. The relevance of the ontology of spacetime (see my final comments in that thread) is clear and evident from a multitude of scholarly papers presented at several conferences by members of the International Society for the Advanced Study of Spacetime. The philosophers of science, presenting at these conferences delve deeply into what it is we are talking about when we say spacetime curves, or space expands, etc. You can say 'who cares, as long as the equations work?,' but the math, by itself does not confer understanding. Does "it" have grooves/ruts to guide the observed trajectories of stuff said to be guided by spacetime? Or does gravity pull on objects without such a medium as spacetime, be it relational/dependent on matter or substantive and existing as an entity in and of itself? Maybe if you would read a few of these papers you would gain a new appreciation for the kinds of questions philosophers (ontologists) of science are asking about spacetime... not so cut and dried as you would have it, making such inquiry irrelevant. Likewise 4-D space. PS; Maybe you are taking my "I don't believe in spacetime" a little too seriously as a 'personal disbelief.' All ontologists who disbelieve in its existence as something with certain properties are much like the disbelievers in the "luminiferous aether" not so long ago. And I just get a kick out of stuffed shirt relativity theorists who glibly and matter of factly speak of spacetime as an established entity (ignoring the serious scholarly ontological debate about it.) The Emporer's New Clothes is a very "fitting" metaphor for this kind of quasi-scientific snobbery. You gotta love the kid who blurts out, "but he is not wearing any clothes!" Many well credentialed scientists also "believe" that 'the fabric of spacetime is equally bogus and pretentious. Pps: I have no problem with three dimensional space and time is a factor in that everything moves around in space, requiring an 'elapsed time' for movement from point a to point B. But Minkowski reified spacetime into some malleable thing, which is how "it" has been treated ever since.

Spyman, Thanks for your in-depth analysis of my model. First, I agree with your clarification that gravity is continuous but not steady in the sense that individual masses do lose mass and g-force, like sun burning up fuel (mass to radiant energy) and gain mass as black holes attract more matter. I also agree that there is no distance limit gravity's range, but that it diminishes with the square of that distance. Seems my model must live or die on whether or not the 'farthest out stuff' (beyond our sphere of visibility) maintains spherical symmetry. You wrote: I will call the model falsified if I can be sure that it all stays as spheres (shells) inside of spheres and that the expansion can never be reversed. But please consider for a moment the possibility that there is enough mass in the cosmos to eventually reverse the expansion and and begin an implosion half of a bang/crunch cycle. In that case, what happens to the farthest out stuff as it reaches the 'gravitation net' which would effect such a reversal? Is there just dispersed dust and gasses heading for entropy (almost) or would masses have coalesced into larger and larger supermassive black holes (SMBH's?) Seems the latter could make for a radical redistribution of mass, falling out of symmetrical sphere configuration. No? (I think that you think you already answered this, but have you considered the possible disintegration of symmetry in this case?) Are you saying that reversal of expansion is impossible (invalidating the whole bang/crunch model) because of the shell theorem of gravity? Apparently not, given the following: So, at the outer reaches, approaching the 'gravitational net' with all kinds of different mass densities and SMBH's glomming together in very irregular non-patterns of distrubution, does the theorem still hold? Is this still a "closed system?" Even if the outer stuff can not be the force pulling our visible cosmos ever faster outward... (and we are stuck with an unknown mystery force) seems that all hell would break loose if returning matter from a previous bang interacted with the outgoing stuff we presently observe. Would it all then turn around, and follow the incoming back to the crunch, assuming that most mass is beyond our 'horizon' and becomes the above 'incoming.' More later, but don't wait if you would answer the above before i complicate it even more with the large scale balloon. (Maybe best to leave that scale alone for now, as it compounds the unknowns in the speculation already in progress as above.)

I don't 'believe in' "the fabric of space" as an entity that can fold, expand, curve, etc. I consider "it" science's version of The Emperor's New Clothes. (See my thread in Philosophy, "Spacetime Ontology: the Scholarly Debate.") So, anyway, what is outside the "inescapable box?"

I've said this before in other threads, but I challenge anyone here to come up with an "end of space." So, what kind of boundary can anyone imagine such a limit to be? (Hint: It's all in your head.) But say you have a firm idea of a limit to space... so what lies beyond that limit/wall/boundary that someone might have imagined? More space? Of course. There can be no limit to space. I just read the thread and copied a bunch of quotes. I'll make it simple and just reply in bold within the quote box of selected quotes: Look at the meaning of the words. To "de-fine" is to make finite, at least in the collective mind, and in the dictionary. Srpace and all that it contains (visible and not) is infinite, by the above argument using logic alone. I welcome any argument with this post. Just be clear on you premise as to what space (and "the universe') is, please.

Not much spare time recently. Spyman, I understood your presentation of the shell theorem in posts #2 about spherically symmetrical shells and then (post 4) replying to my post #3: I was and still am having trouble seeing the interaction of my multiple bangs (outgoing) and multiple crunches (incoming matter) as remaining always in symmetrically spherical shell configuration. I speculate that clumps beyond visibility could have coalesced and redistributed the "outer shell" masses out of shell (or symmetrical sphere) configuration, especially if "previous launches" of material have already reversed from expansion phase and begun the implosion half of the bang/crunch cycle. No one knows what kind of mass distribution there could be by the time a "gravitational net"* is reached and reversal to implosion begins, or how this would effect our visible cosmos as it approaches closer, no longer as "shells" beyond what we see. I know this is unconventional, hence the thread title. Also, how do you explain the anomaly you cited about "patches" accelerating outward faster than surroundings? I don't think simply acknowledging mysterious, unknown forces is any better than my positing regular gravity from ordinary matter, way out there, not arranged in spherical symmetry as the cause. *And no one has yet replied to my presentation of gravity as a steady force ever since the bang or throughout multiple bang/crunch cycles, i.e., without a range limit depending on speed of propagation. I will try to reply to your other points and other posts this evening.

md65536: Maybe there is a special usage of "causality" to which you refer. (If so please define.) I understand it in the common sense, as given in wikipedia: You continue: The rate of gravitational propagation is still a topic of debate. 'At the speed of light' seems to have the most evidence behind it, I think. But the speed of propagation is beside the point if it is a steady force, always, as between earth and sun... no gaps. (What would happen to earth of sun instantly disappeared is an interesting question... eight minutes before it 'flies of on its tangent' or instantly, once the gravity generated by sun quits.) Again, "causality" is not a question in my mind. Masses attract other masses, and all mass 'causes' the force of gravity in mutual attraction with all other masses. As I have already said in this thread, I understand gravity to be constant between all masses, since the "bang" and still steady. As I understand the "universal law of gravitation" (not disproven to my knowledge), mass attracts mass directly with massiveness and inversely with the square of the distance between masses. No limit was placed on that distance, as far as i know. If so, please explain the limit/boundary beyond which there is no gravitational attraction between masses. I mean it it the most simple and common sense way, which I have repeated many times: "The cosmic event horizon is as far as we can see"... with our best technology, including "background radiation from the bang" and optics from Hubble's deep space probe, focused on one relatively 'empty' spot in the sky for a relatively long time. (More of the same as far as we can see.) I hope this clarifies. I really am open to any arguments which disprove any of the above, as long as you understand what I am saying... i.e., not just "invalidating" a misconception of what I am presenting as "far out cosmology" here.

(I hit the reply button for this to quote the whole post and use the quote bubble above for individual quotes but still don't get the "noparse" tags you just used.) Here is the address of the The Balloon Analogy In Cosmology I called "well worn" though I disagree with its assumptions* as evident in my presentation. I think you are quibbling about trivia to say I can't call it a model, as I use the term in a less restricted sense than you do. I have little time for these boards these days.( My hit and run approach does not mean lack of interest... just lack of time.) http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/balloon0.html * I see cosmos expanding into space beyond what we can see, though not "empty" where more stuff might exist. "...beyond the universe" is a silly phrase, since the universe must be all there is, known and unknown. I see the Big Bang locus at the center of the balloon in the very large scale model and the multiple bangs and crunches as happening on the smaller scale within the "balloon membrane" as already presented in detail. Finally, my question still remains as to why there can be no gravitational attraction by matter, in whatever array, (like scattered around as coalesced clumps) beyond our visible cosmic horizon which gravitationally pulls on stuff we can see, accounting for the accelerating rate of expansion in general and accounting for the kind of anomaly (even faster accelerating "patches" of our visible cosmos) cited above by Spyman. Btw, my 'model' is 3-d. A fourth spacial dimension is an abstraction with no referent in the real cosmos, in my opinion.

This must be quick... more this eve in reply to other posts. There is no need for nasty, insulting sarcasm. This is the section for speculation, and "brainstorming" is a legitimate part of science prior to what is well excepted enough to be taught in textbooks. The inflating balloon model is well worn in cosmology. My version adds some details of scale like a way more vast "balloon" than our little local environment...visibility limit... deep within the membrane. Probably never verifiable or falsifiable... but it's speculative. The "expanding foam" was a reply to the too-literal focus on the thinning of the rubber membrane as the balloon inflates, because Iggy was not getting the atom/molecule scale deep within a thick rubber membrane. I do remain open to reasonable falsification of the balloon model and the present multiple bangs and crunches model... as long as criticism is based on what I am presenting, not misconceptions, as above (Iggy's.) I'll still be pursuing how batches of merged supermassive black holes beyond our cosmic horizon, scattered all around our visible cosmos, still acts like a big sphere around our smaller sphere (as far as we can see.) Gotta go.

To first comment: True. But I initiated the thread and do have an interest in the topic, if you don't mind (or even if you do.) So then I reply to your post and you to mine, and off we go again. And your agenda to set me straight on textbook science while not comprehending what I am actually saying... continues. (Incidentally, as to your instructions on how to properly use the quote boxes... Sometimes I prefer to answer point by point in context, quoting each point individually rather than responding to the whole quoted post like now. It avoids the need, for instance, to say, "To the first comment..." etc.) To your second statement: Scale is totally relevant to the model I presented. Inside a "thick rubber membrane" of an expanding balloon, at the atomic level (representing our solar system as part of a rubber molecule, our galaxy) and nowhere near the inner or outer "surfaces,") the the motion of the other molecules (galaxies) adjacent in the membrane would look just like what we see, each "molecule" moving away from its neighbors. The "thinning of the membrane" in an actual balloon is not a factor in my model. At the "atomic level" deep in the membrane, the thinning effect would not be noticed anyway. Still the balloon analogy fails at extreme levels of literal interpretation. The rubber in my membrane (and it is my model) is expanding like foam even as the whole balloon is expanding. That was the meaning of the hologram analogy... as with the whole balloon (expanding), so with the membrane itself, also expanding in "thickness" as well as with the whole balloon. Think of the foam out of a can that seals gaps in house maintenance. Anyway you simply didn't get it and still don't. Here, from the above is a perfect example of your totally missing the point and going off on your own mental excursion: Compare with my actual model in detail above and anyone can see that you remain oblivious to what I actually presented... atomic/molecular scale deep within the "rubber."

Iggy: Translation: 'You are wrong as usual, but it is just too much trouble to explain why.' The big mystery to me is, after our history of near perfect miscommunication, why do you continue to reply to my posts? Iggy: What you never understood about that model was the scale of the whole expanding balloon with a thick skin and buried deep within that skin is the "atom" of our solar system (part of a molecule/ galaxy of "rubber".) Also you missed the hologram reference... that the "minutia" of each little sphere of visibility within the membrane is expanding on very small scale relative to the whole balloon, which is also expanding. (As with the minutia, so with the whole.) But now I am presenting a multiple bangs scenario, which you also fail to grasp. Stuff that was "launched" way earlier than the "present bang" could easily have had time to coalesce into clumps, pulling each other out of their original symmetry, i.e., no longer a nice symmetrical sphere containing our visible sphere. My last post was an attempt to clarify that and ask how "clumpy" the far out stuff must be to no longer be considered a symmetrical sphere 'containing' our visible sphere. I no case is the earth the center of the cosmos... quite obviously. My sense is that all of the above makes no sense to you, so you "fail" my models (in last thread and here) without understanding them. I gave up hope of communication with you long ago, and that has not changed.

My multiple bangs and crunches model has matter of multiple bangs out beyond our sphere of visibility, not necessarily still in spherical symmetrical shells (as originally from the bang/bangs) but having coalesced into clumps or combined supermassive black holes... some possibly still expanding outward, some possibly having reversed and now imploding and perhaps interacting with our visible cosmos, like those speeding up anomalous patches you cited above (just in spots closest to incoming clumps of matter.) So the overall shape would be the cosmos as we see it expanding in all directions outward with possible scattered clumps beyond or cosmic horizon pulling parts of what we see outward faster than surrounding areas. (Maybe repetitive, but hopefully a clarification.) I'm not clear on how randomly distributed such "clumps" must be to be no longer considered a symmetrical outer shell or shells and still have a pulling-outward effect on what we can see (no longer as symmetrical shells within shells.) Maybe the above gets around the gravitational zero sum situation/limitation of nesting spheres. My comments about gravity being a steady pull on all matter since the bang(s) was an argument against the above posts positing limitations on gravity's range and a precluding lime lag before its visible effects from "beyond" could reach and effect what we can see. Obviously there are no gaps in gravitational force between sun and earth (it is steady) even though it would take eight minutes for earth to start flying off tangent to its orbit if the sun ceased to exist. Hope this clarifies the finer points of this (again) very speculative cosmology. Iggy: See Spyman's anomaly above where some patches are accelerating outward faster than the norm. Everything is moving away from everything else at an accelerating rate of expansion, and it all looks isotropic and homogeneous from here. This does not, of course, demand that earth is the center of the expanding cosmos... the cosmic equivalent of the pre-Copernican view of sun orbiting earth and earth being the center of the universe.

Iggy: Even without introducing time as a thing (search "presentism") as in the light cone example , we can stay on the same page by just stating the obvious: We can't see what is beyond our sphere of visibility, which of course is limited by lightspeed of far away images (very old light) and the speed of those light sources in outward cosmic expansion. (I wonder how special relativity deals with this trade off. Just an aside.) Iggy, cont'd: Yet, stuff, say in clumps, maybe having coalesced from a previous bang, could still be the gravitational cause of some areas of the visible cosmos "speeding up" relative to the general rate of expansion as in Spyman's cited anomaly.* Iggy: One would be a stupid fool to believe the earth to be the center of the universe, as I explained in detail in the cosmology discussion as it was still in the old thread about the end of space. I will find my piece on the above if you want. You either didn't read it or just enjoy casting me as above. I had earth and our visible cosmos deep in the membrane thickness of a way larger scale "balloon" model in that context. * To Spyman's piece as above: So, back to possible clumps of matter (say combined supermassive black holes) beyond our vision attracting these "patches" faster than their surroundings. My supernovae model was an intentional departure from symmetrical shells of homogeneous density and thickness. (Not a homogenous distribution of denser matter, gasses, dust, etc.) As a small scale model, given multiple bangs, not just one big one, why could that model not still be viable? The symmetry of the explosion may be an arguable point, requiring adjustment of the model. But if there has been a series of bangs, that could account for whatever "far out" stuff we can't see and a lack of symmetry as "incoming" and "out going" mix it up as an overall dynamic. Very speculative, of course... which is why it is presented in this section. BTW: Who says that gravity is not a constant force ever since the bang or bangs, just diminished in force with more distance (the square of the distance, as I understand it) ad infinitum. There is no waiting while "gravity waves" reach us, as argued above. For example, the gravitational pull between earth (and other planets) and the sun is steady. No delays waiting for it to reach us just because it travels at light speed, if it does...which seems well established.

I ME wrote: You clearly have not given any thought to the "ontology of time" in general or as presented in my thread as referenced above. You assume "it" as an entity and that there is a different 'time environment' for every different frame of reference, effected by relative motion... ignoring the simple explanation that clocks simply "keep time" differently, (or "tick" at different rates) in different environments. Have you ever studied "presentism?" There are different versions, but basically it posits that "it is always now, everywhere" regardless of relative motion among different frames of reference (or the light speed limit for conveying images and information.) Some posit a "global time structure", but if you read my comments in the ontology of time thread, you will see that, if time is not an entity, it can not have a "structure." It is just the duration of events between one (designated) "now" and another, as measured by anyone with a specific event focus and a stopwatch. Jasper wrote: Ontologically, "What exactly dilates?" As I said above the simple explanation (for "time dilation") is that clocks simply "keep time" differently, (or "tick" at different rates) in different environments. Time is not a 'thing' or medium through which one can travel. "It" is always now, wherever you are and however fast you are traveling. (And the "it" is the same usage as in "It is raining," i.e., not an agent or entity. Rain is just happening.)

md65536, Huh? What "in between stuff?" As far as we can see (present tense) is our cosmic event horizon. Beyond that is anybody's guess. I was guessing that stuff which is further out than we can see could be pulling outward on our visible cosmos, as we observe its expanding at an accelerating rate, and nobody knows why. Positing some sort of anti-gravity mystery matter or "dark energy" is not an answer, just making up words for "some mysterious unknown force." Spyman tells me that the pull of "far out" stuff can not account for this visible expansion. Seems like you are playing in a different ballpark.

Finished reading the entire thread. Anyone interested in discussing the ontology of time, i.e., "what is it, if an entity?," as a foundation for the next question, "Is it something through which one can travel?" If so, please check out my (now dormant) thread in the Speculations section, The Ontology of time. How about my simple question in above post? Maybe the most fundamental focus is to define is, the ever present "now" as contrasted with was, the no longer present and will be, not yet present. It is true, as already stated here, that an egg can not be unscrambled, or, to "travel further back in time," "unlayed." Likewise my future great grandchildren are not yet born, so there is no way to "visit them." The whole concept of time travel is simply science fiction, from any reasonable perspective.

Sorry about the name and quote mix up. Obvious in retrospect. Seems to violate the universal law of gravitation to claim that stuff further out than we can see is not pulling outward on stuff we can see... since all matter attracts all other matter, the closer the more attractive force... Must be that the pull of the closer stuff is balanced my the way more mass of the farther stuff in the rest of the total mass of all shells. Thanks anyway. I'll leave it.

My next agenda in this forum is to read this thread in depth. Admitting that I have only skimmed (and read the first few.) Meanwhile, will someone please explain how we 'get out of' the present, either into the future or the past, since neither exist in the ongoing present! (Magic time machines don't count in science!) Or is this just too simple a question for complex mental theories (and sci-fi mentality) about time to consider?

I was just reviewing replies and gave second thought to this one from prowler: Prowler wrote: The first sentence makes good sense if the spherical body has homogeneous matter density as well as symmetry in its shell. (Not a "given" in the model of an exploding supernova which has a more random distribution of remnants because of differences in original matter density in the explosion... I've studied supernovae as an amateur interest.) The next statement needs revision to make sense. Given a "hollow ball" there are no "objects inside." But I suppose this is to say that gravity is neutral for any object within such a (mostly hollow) shell. Fine. I understand what Spyman cited... for a single 'shell' of matter. No argument with the last statement, a well proven "fact." My argument is that the above does not address the multiple bangs, multiple concentric spheres/shells of matter (of various "thickness".) Outer shells and inner shells must, as I see it, exert mutual "pull" on each other. This could be the cause or our observable accelerating rate of cosmic expansion. (But I am getting ahead of Spyman's anticipated reply to my last post.) Oh well... I had some extra "time on my hands" for a change. (Not for long!.. a lot of "busy" on the way... not that personal comments are relevant.)

Thanks again. But I still have further need of clarification if you have the patience for it. I understand, I think, what you have presented about the gravitational dynamics of a spherically symmetrical body. But you seem to have applied single sphere dynamics to multiple (nesting, in my case) shells. Since inner and outer shells must be mutually pulling on each other (as per the universal law of gravitation), what about matter shells from earlier bangs, further out than we can see, (whether or not matter has coalesced into clumps) pulling what we can see ever faster outward? I'm still struggling with the possibility of mass beyond our vision pulling on mass we can see. Since all mass mutually attracts all other mass, why can't mass beyond our vision be attracting mass we can see on macrocosmic scale. With multiple spherically symmetrical and concentric shells, like a cosmic onion with spaces in between layers, why can't outer shells attract inner shells, as a different case than the dynamics of a single shell as in the info you cited? I don't yet understand what the "canceling out" of gravitational forces means in this case of multiple shells. If we focus in just one direction for instance (to simplify it), beyond the farthest galaxies (matter) we can see in a deep probe view, why can't galaxies (matter) beyond that attract visible stuff, pulling it outward faster?

Iggy, I guess you are gone, but, if you happen to glance back... regarding your statement: ...I replied literally point by point to your previous post. In a real conversation you would have pointed out specifically how you thought I fell short of answering you. You, on the other hand did not address any of my last post to you. Anyway, thanks for the link. Off to read it as soon as i finish this post. But, right up front, how do you deal with the Harvey Brown quotes on the non-existence and "parasitic" nature of Minkowski's space-time? Here it is again: "But I have read and quoted in this thread comments by Brown to the effect that spacetime does not exist and further, that Minkowski's concept of it was "parasitic" upon the intrinsic dynamics of the physical entities and their relationships. This would make it not only a non-entity but unnecessary to the the dynamics of gravitational force... subject to being cut out as per Occam's razor, as I have always maintained." Your lack of comment on the above is another example of no communication here. For the benefit of anyone still interested in the ontology which is the focus of this thread, here is a recap (aka, a dreaded repetition) of that focus, which went unanswered above: Edit: Finished the Brown-Pooley paper. Whew! Another tough read. I took a lot of notes, but here is just for openers: A theory which has "nothing to say about the reality behind the phenomenon” does not, of course, address the ontology of spacetime. I agree with Einstein's statements above and have been pursuing those "elementary foundations" in the context of spacetime ontology. Deeper into the text is the following Einsteinian perspective: Ruts or grooves in some substantive "thing?" The perennial ontological question still stands, "What thing?"

What if the multiple bangs sent out matter more like a supernova explosion, i.e., not necessarily into spherical shells per se but more randomly scattered like supernova remnants... kind of a combination of the two cosmologies above? Then the scattered masses beyond our cosmic event horizon (as far as we can see) might be pulling on what we can see without the spherical gravitational interactions (one sphere inside another), which, I see, would not work. Then the closer "incoming" mass gets to our visible cosmos, the faster our expansion would accelerate. Of course it could take untold cosmic ages, so we should not expect visible changes anytime soon. Also I would expect to see differences in rate of acceleration in different parts of our sphere of visibility as random clumps of in-coming matter get closer to parts of our cosmos we can see. Thanks for the info. Very interesting.

The below was my last post in a 'hijacked' thread about the 'end of space.' In review, I decided to share it on the least respectable section of this forum, "speculations" (and "pseudoscience.") Note: Speculative cosmology is not empirical science. Large scale cosmology beyond our vision (and "before the Bang" speculation) is not verifiable. Not all possible cosmologies are presently empirically observable/verifiable. Yet they may be possible. Replay: .... I do think the supernova remnant model would be an improvement over the balloon model, though... not like a perfectly spherical shell of a perfectly uniform thickness. And it is an actual explosion of material out into empty space, which is still in the face of the doctrine to the contrary... that that does not happen. (Rather that "space itself expands."... the last word here on what is true and real they say.) Ontologically, what is "space" as such a malleable medium? Who cares? I refer the forum to my post on that on the last page, post 255. Also a summary yesterday in post 260. One last outrageous possibility, I'd like to share before we are cast to the outer darkness: I also "like" a multiple bangs/multiple crunches model... that there is "incoming material" that we can't see yet on the way in to "crunch" even as what we see is "outgoing" ... at an accelerating rate of expansion even! So then we could dump "dark energy" as the anti-gravity factor pushing us ever faster outward... since no one has a clue what "it" might be anyway. The 'stuff further out' from a previous bang would then just be pulling our 'shell' ever faster outward via gravity as we know it. The Cosmic Juggling Act model! Very speculative, of course... and still without an apology!

Iggy: Our "conversation" is a near perfect example of miscommunication. And since you said, " I won't be reading the rest of your post," I assume you will not continue to read this thread, so this clarification is about what I meant that you did not understand, for the benefit of anyone interested. I am here challenging what "most people" in science define as space, specifically those who reify it. You sounded like I left out your favorite synonym, a vacuum, so I included it, obvious as it was. The main "problem" of defining space as emptiness/vacuum is that if it is nothing then it can not expand (as in "space itself expands" cosmology), or curve, (as in non-Euclidean curved space.) This ontology challenges both of those standard assumptions, the point of this thread. The language of "straight" or even "flat" space does not apply to space as emptiness. It can have volume if so defined within designated boundaries, but "straight" is linear, not applicable to volume. Neither is "flat space" applicable to empty volume, whether bounded, as above or in the sense of infinite, unbounded empty space. "Flat" applies to a plane, not volume, and "straight" applies to a line, not a plane or a volume. (Just a review of elementary geometry.)... And, yes, I know that "flat space" is in common usage in science, which does not deter me from criticizing the usage. A prime example of total lack of communication. I have always argued that space is nothing(ness)... emptiness or lack of things. I have never referred to space as "straight." (See above.) "Things" do in fact move through and occupy space. Obviously, wherever so occupied, space is no longer empty, but emptiness remains between things which render it 'not empty.' "So what," indeed. I emphatically do not make the same assumptions about space as does relativity theory. My "beef" with curved space has been a constant theme here. Ontologically, to have the property of curvature, space must be some kind of extant entity. I and many others argue that it is not. That is my "beef" with the reification of space in relativity. . It seems to be beyond your ability to comprehend that things can travel through empty space without reifying "it", making "it" into "something" (some "thing.") Ontology is about what exists. As I posed before, "Does nothingness exist?" If space is the absence of things, no-thing, there is no need to argue for its existence. If it is supposed to be something (that curves, expands, etc.), then the burden of proof, in ontology, is on those who claim that "it" is something... i.e., "what is it?" I liked the title and read the abstract but did not buy the book. (The book is not available as a whole online, to my knowledge, and I have searched. If I missed it, someone please clue me and I will read it.) But I have read and quoted in this thread comments by Brown to the effect that spacetime does not exist and further, that Minkowski's concept of it was "parasitic" upon the intrinsic dynamics of the physical entities and their relationships. This would make it not only a non-entity but unnecessary to the the dynamics of gravitational force... subject to being cut out as per Occam's razor, as I have always maintained. You missed that the conversation here was about the distance between objects with "empty space" between them. I went into great detail in answering lemur's questions/challenges about such measurements of distance. Whether or not there is space debris, dust, or gasses in space, say between earth and sun, is beside the point. Also beside the point is whether the sphere we were talking about before your arrival is empty inside or solid, or earth itself. The distance through it, point to point (or earth's diameter in your example) is measured on a straight line between the points or through the earth. Distance does not depend on space between points or objects being empty, as you have erroneously assumed as my argument. As to your last three questions... 1: Obviously, earth's diameter is a given length or distance. Two objects could be launched into space and made to rest that distance apart... same distance whether through earth's matter or through empty space. 2: The above does not conflict with my definition of space as the emptiness between things... or infinite emptiness, for that matter. 3: I understand that you misunderstand me, as reflected in those questions and most of your replies to me. To which part I am not sure. To the solid earth or empty space question of distance measurement, I have answered as clearly as I can. To the next exchange... Me: "I was speaking of the standard model of cosmology which insists that space is expanding" You: "No, you weren't. You were speaking of general relativity. I'll quote the part of your post that I was responding to: View Postowl, on 8 April 2011 - 09:58 AM, said: "This is the standard doctrine of present day science/cosmology, i.e., that rather than stuff exploding outward into space, that "space itself is expanding." (I thought you were an advocate of standard doctrine.) Space is considered, in relativity theory, to be an entity which began expanding with the "Bang" and continues to expand." You continue: My focus in recent context has been the ontology of space, whether it is something which expands (as per one standard version of cosmology, ever since the "big bang")... and whether or not it is something which curves (as per relativity theory.) I admit that I misspoke in my last sentence. I should have said, "in a popular cosmology" rather than "in relativity theory," the latter pertaining to curved space instead. My hope is that a misspoken phrase will not derail my whole ontological argument about the nature of space (and time and spacetime.) Finally re: Very simply, you are not qualified as an expert on what I think, no matter the content or subject. I am the only expert on what I think. A lot of what I think and say is "beyond" you. I will not be disappointed if you quit this thread. There is no hope of actual communication with you.