The Nature and
Definition of Space:
Space, Aether, Nothing and Infinity
"In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the
masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief
My first new paradigms article segment dealt with the
nature and definition of
time and why our thinking about it has been misguided. As I see it,
another “fundamental” problem is prevalent thinking about space.
Heidegger said, “Nothing nothings!” In other words, “nothing” doesn’t DO
anything, it can’t contain anything, like the universe, and it
doesn’t make up real space or volume in the physical universe. There
IS NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING! It is just a mental reference point. The philosopher Michael Miller says,
"As Parmenides pointed out about 2500 years ago, and as
Ayn Rand reminded us more recently, there is no nothing. To
say that a void exists is to say that there is a place where
non-existence nevertheless exists. Void is absurd—an
epistemological error, a figment. There is something
everywhere; reality is full. It has no 'gaps.'"
"The universe is not in space; space is in the universe."
- Philosopher Michael Miller
I wish we could do away with this word “space”! The term is only
good for a vague reference to a region out beyond the observational
point. There is the real VOLUME of the universe, which we often call
space, and then there is the imaginary infinite extension of the
Cartesian coordinates, xyz, which we call “space” and which we
confuse with the volume of the real universe. But these are not the
same thing! This false idea of space cannot be validly reified, but
neither can “volume” be reified, for that matter, but only
specified. Neither volume nor space can be reified into something
that stretches, shrinks, curves, warps, or ripples.
Given that there can be no voids of nothingness, the EU paradigm
has—because of both sound
evidence and reasoning—confidently
settled on the conclusion that the volume of the physical universe
is filled with an aether. In other words, the existence of an aether is
axiomatic. Currently the thinking is that this aether is composed of
polarizable neutrinos where there can be no such thing as voids of
“nothing”. Again, the philosopher Michael Miller has paved some of
the way to this model:
"Curved space" is a staple of 20th Century thought. Space
warps are a cliche of science fiction. Generations of
science students have tried to make sense of curved space,
and succeeded only in warping their minds. Curved space is
taken for granted among the learned; if you protest that
curved space is absurd, they roll their eyes and shake their
But what the heck does 'curved space' mean, and how does
it measure up against the principle of immutable units?"
Bottom line? The whole monstrous, mathematical edifice of
Einsteinian thinking about relativity and there being no aether has
a false foundation, and mainstream science is wandering in fantasy
land when they invoke space-time, a double reification.
On the other end of things, “infinity” may be a useful mathematical construct
but it cannot be applied to any countable aspect of the tangible,
physical universe. It is misguided to think of "space" being
infinite, The physical universe may be vast beyond our scope of
visualization but it is equally misguided to think of it being
infinite in its particulate makeup. The number of galaxies, stars,
planets, atoms and sub-atomic particles including aether particles
CANNOT be infinite. To think otherwise violates our foundational
logic and opens the door to mysticism and intellectual and spiritual
So, does the physical universe have a boundary? Of course it
does. Think of this boundary as a limit of what is INSIDE, not what
is outside. The non-sequitor question is often asked, "What is on
the other side of the boundary of the universe?" The obvious answer
is "nothing". NOTHING! The definition of the universe is that it
includes everything that exists, and there can be no thing outside
A poem by Michael D. Armstrong
Scientists have a large particle tree,
on which they drape with abandoned glee,
all the particles they need to be.
Electrons and Protons and Neutrons laid bare,
all hung on the branches with exquisite care
in hopes that some sense soon will be there.
Photons glistening, what a sight!
Produced in minds ever so bright,
supposedly make up what is light.
Are they like bullets, or are they waves?
Accordingly each view is the one that saves
a theory about which someone raves.
Particles virtual and particles real,
metaphysical minds wheel and deal
to see if they are, or maybe just feel.
I surely wouldn't be telling you lies,
in this particle feast for our eyes,
there is always to be another surprise.
If this dilemma has Lepton your back
and of holes in the scheme you have no lack,
add some more particles to the rack.
For some have found in this particle race,
it's easy to get Pion your face,
or even be put in your anti-place.
But if you think it will do no harm,
Tryon a Quark with color and charm,
(Tardyon you may go to the funny farm)
Or maybe one with spin or flavor,
a great delight for the mind to savor,
and then you don't ever even waver.
Is all this enough? Not quite!
Tachyons are going faster than light,
and yet, how can that be possible or right?
They spend billions looking for Higgs,
instead these scientist wigs
find fruit that amounts to figs.
Even out West where the Bosons roam
and the cattle Muon the way home,
Neutrinos pass through the Meson loam.
They never get Baryon boot hill,
but some Hyperon scientists certainly will,
unless they find a new particle still.
What more can they possibly Gluon this tree,
or what could the ultimate particle be?
I'm Moron Positron it's a Puton, you see!