CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Philosophy › What do you guys think about this (empty space theory)?

What do you guys think about this (empty space theory)?

Started by nimblemarlin17 · · 👁 5 views · 23 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants nimblemarlin17mistyfox812Arthur BarnesBradley Fisher20Sophia Evans76ironbadger31hiddenviper9shadowjackal88shadowfalcon33Eric Wells3Rebecca Cox2A
nimblemarlin17 nimblemarlin17 RegularOP
459 messages
joined Mar 2004
#1 ·
I was just poking around this section of the forum and it reminded me of an idea I had about space, its structure, and what it all actually means. It’s more on the philosophical side. We actually debated stuff like this in my high school philosophy class a few years back.

I spent about an hour explaining this theory to my teacher afterward. She told me it actually made sense and that the theory itself wasn't bad. I came up with it out of nowhere during that philosophy lecture. Look, we all know that space consists of an indescribable amount of empty void, which is—to put it mildly—mostly empty, yet filled with matter in the form of stars, planets, comets, asteroids, and so on (maybe even antimatter, dark matter, black holes, and whatever else they're discovering lately). The actual volume of matter compared to that massive empty void is practically negligible.
Now let's take it up a notch. Matter (at least based on what we know today) is mostly made of hydrogen atoms. Over 90% of everything is hydrogen; the share of all other elements is pretty small, and they all basically stem from hydrogen anyway. We know a hydrogen atom—and all others—consists of a nucleus and electrons. Everyone has seen those textbook diagrams of an atom. The problem is, that perception isn't accurate at all. If one hydrogen proton were the size of a football, then the first orbiting electron would be the size of a tennis ball located about 15 miles away from that nucleus! That is roughly the actual spatial relationship between the parts of an atom. Imagine a massive sphere about 15 miles wide with components that size. An atom is essentially just a tiny bit of "nothing." It's empty space at a micro-dimension that is almost entirely vacant, save for some tiny protons, electrons, and neutrons.
Ratios like that between matter and empty space led me to a simple conclusion: this division of space goes on forever, splitting into endless voids and negligibly small bits of matter. Mathematically speaking, if you follow the limit, you conclude that space is actually just one big nothingness. What we see and experience is just reshaped empty space that must be governed by something. Personally, I view God that way—as the force that manages everything, the force that keeps space within our perception at all times. Because if math and logic lead to the conclusion that space doesn't exist, yet we know it does, then there has to be some "something" at the highest level that creates a world of "something" out of nothing. All natural laws, all rules. Mass, light, speed... it's all just contained within empty space. Completely empty.

What do you guys think?
mistyfox812 mistyfox812 Regular
295 messages
joined Mar 2004
#2 ·
Man, oh man.
Arthur Barnes Arthur Barnes Active Member
131 messages
joined Mar 2009
#3 ·
Man...
nimblemarlin17 nimblemarlin17 RegularOP
459 messages
joined Mar 2004
#4 ·
mistyfox812 said:Man, what a joke.

Still, it’s a reaction of some kind. Better than total silence, I guess. Though personally, I think it's all pretty much useless. 😁
Bradley Fisher20 Bradley Fisher20 Active Member
142 messages
joined May 2005
#5 ·
And then you just take a hit of that wisdom weed and realize everything is nothing but relativity...
Sophia Evans76 Sophia Evans76 Member
43 messages
joined Dec 2003
#6 ·
nimblemarlin17 said:I actually sat down and ran this whole thing by my professor an hour later—she told me it actually made sense and that the theory wasn't half bad.

So, what's the verdict?

Honestly, that teacher needs to step away from the philosophy podium immediately...
mistyfox812 mistyfox812 Regular
295 messages
joined Mar 2004
#7 ·
Sophia Evans76 said:That teacher seriously needs to quit teaching philosophy ASAP...

I mean, I guess things went pretty smoothly for her though...
Bradley Fisher20 Bradley Fisher20 Active Member
142 messages
joined May 2005
#8 ·
Sophia Evans76 said:that teacher seriously needs to quit teaching philosophy immediately...

Here’s our little siren, always missing her damn *****. How’s that working out for ya? 😉
nimblemarlin17 nimblemarlin17 RegularOP
459 messages
joined Mar 2004
#9 ·
Sophia Evans76 said:this teacher needs to stop teaching philosophy immediately...

Huh. Why? The theory is actually pretty scientifically accurate. At least regarding the relationship between space and the bodies within it, or atoms and their subatomic parts. Give me one actual reason why my theory is total nonsense. You can't just call something stupid without providing some logic... you have to actually philosophize a bit first.😁
ironbadger31 ironbadger31 Active Member
79 messages
joined Jan 2008
#10 ·
nimblemarlin17, whenever you get a chance, could you put together something like this:

...Basically, we all know that space consists of an indescribable amount of empty space—which is negligible in volume (but then again, maybe not)—filled with matter in the form of stars, planets, comets, asteroids, and so on (and perhaps even antimatter, dark matter, black holes, and those other recent discoveries).

Now, if you're actually getting praise from a philosophy teacher for saying that, it either means she really likes you or she definitely bought her degree... 😁

But hey, don't take it personally! Here are a few questions for you.

1. How do you define "empty space"? What actually *is* it?
2. How do you define matter? What constitutes matter?
3. This specific quote;
Such relationships between matter and empty space simply led me to conclude that this division of space extends infinitely into a split between empty space and negligibly small amounts of matter.

It makes me wonder about the concept of "infinity" and what "endless" truly means. Are these concepts actual realities, or just mental constructs we've made up? And can you actually prove infinity through logic?

Etc, etc, etc... 😁
mistyfox812 mistyfox812 Regular
295 messages
joined Mar 2004
#11 ·
nimblemarlin17 said:Hmm, why though? Part of this theory is actually scientifically spot on. At least when you look at the relationship between space and the bodies within it, or atoms and their components. Give me a real explanation for why my theory is totally garbage. You can't just call it stupid—you gotta actually philosophize a bit here...😁

Alright, here’s an explanation in true nimblemarlin17 style.
What you just said is such a tiny, microscopic speck compared to everything that's been said—and everything that hasn't been said (since time is infinite)—that it basically amounts to nothing. And honestly? Everything else anyone else has ever said is also... well, nothing, by comparison. So really, nobody has actually said anything at all.

And that "partially completely" thing? Are you messing with me, or what...
nimblemarlin17 nimblemarlin17 RegularOP
459 messages
joined Mar 2004
#12 ·
"Partially" refers to just one slice of my whole story, whereas "completely" applies strictly to that specific segment. You get what I'm saying? "Completely" is the absolute truth regarding how sizes work in space. Get it? 😁
nimblemarlin17 nimblemarlin17 RegularOP
459 messages
joined Mar 2004
#13 ·
To ironbadger31:

Empty space: we're talking vacuum on both the macro and micro scales. Space separates objects in space. Empty space separates the parts of an atom. My take? Electrons, protons, and neutrons are also made of even smaller structures following a similar scale. You've got matter and you've got empty space. Then you split that matter into more matter and space. Then you split that matter again... and it just keeps going forever. Even if you assumed subatomic particles were indivisible—which I highly doubt—if you somehow packed all that matter together without any gaps, all the matter in space could probably be compressed into something smaller than Earth, if it's even that big.
You can prove infinity using math. Whether math is just a tool we invented or actual reality is a different story. But since the math allows for it, I say infinity is possible.
hiddenviper9 hiddenviper9 Active Member
81 messages
joined Oct 2003
#14 ·
nimblemarlin17, don't let these self-proclaimed geniuses get you down.

You said: Empty space: there's a kind of vacuum on both the macro and micro scales. Empty space separates objects in space. Empty space separates the parts of an atom.

You're actually quite close to the truth—but right now, you're experiencing "Chaotic truth." It means you're sensing something real, but you're still missing a few pieces to create a beautiful mosaic.

The only thing is, you have to realize that "empty space" doesn't actually exist!
Because there are Spaces filled with the forge, spaces filled with antimatter, and spaces filled with matter.

In fact, if you were to take a cross-section of the cosmos, you'd see a single "extra battery" formed by three spaces filled with particles reflecting a negative value—three spaces filled with particles reflecting a positive value—and six spaces filled with particles reflecting both negative and positive values.
And all these spaces are subject to those primary layers (three + three + 6).

You mentioned: I'm saying that electrons, protons, and neutrons also consist of even smaller structures in a similar "scale" ratio.

You're right that electrons, protons, and neutrons are made of something Even Smaller—but not in the form of structures with material value. Instead, they possess the value of a MEMORY IMPRINT.

There's more in my book (which, unfortunately, isn't finished yet).
Sophia Evans76 Sophia Evans76 Member
43 messages
joined Dec 2003
#15 ·
nimblemarlin17 said:Hmm, why though? Part of the theory is actually scientifically sound—at least regarding the relationship between space and the bodies within it, or atoms and their components. Give me an actual explanation for why my theory is completely idiotic. You can't just label something "stupid"; you have to actually philosophize a bit...😁

All I need is this...

If math and logic lead us to the conclusion that space doesn't exist, yet we know for a fact that it does, then there has to be some "something" at the highest level that creates a world of things out of nothing. All the laws of natural science, all the rules, everything.

If we know space exists, but math and logic claim otherwise... then either we don't understand math and logic, or they don't exist... or space truly doesn't exist... but we still believe in that SOMETHING... because that something simply HAS TO exist... I mean, how else would little nimblemarlin17 explain the mysteries of how the world began, space itself, the meaning of life, good vs. evil, the existence of God, etc.?

Give me a break. 😁
shadowjackal88 shadowjackal88 Active Member
96 messages
joined Jan 2008
#16 ·
wow... welcome back 😘 👋 🙂 👋
shadowfalcon33 shadowfalcon33 Active Member
64 messages
joined Jan 2008
#17 ·
nimblemarlin17 said:Empty space separates the individual parts of an atom.

You could have easily started this thread over in the natural science section.

Anyway, what does my physics teacher think about this whole line of reasoning regarding atoms?
nimblemarlin17 nimblemarlin17 RegularOP
459 messages
joined Mar 2004
#18 ·
hiddenviper9 said:nimblemarlin17, don't let these self-proclaimed geniuses get under your skin.

You said: Empty space: there's some kind of vacuum on both the macro and micro scales. Empty space separates objects in space. Empty space separates parts of atoms.

You're hovering near the truth—but right now you're dealing with "Chaotic truth." You're catching glimpses of something, but you're missing the pieces needed to assemble a beautiful mosaic.

The thing you have to grasp is that "empty space" DOESN'T exist.
There are Spaces filled with Forge, spaces filled with antimatter, and spaces filled with Matter.

Actually, if you sliced the cosmos crosswise, you'd see an "extra battery" formed by three spaces filled with particles reflecting a MINUS character, three spaces filled with particles reflecting a PLUS character, and six spaces filled with particles reflecting a MINUS/PLUS character.
All these spaces are subject to those initial conditions (three + three + 6).

You said: I'm saying electrons, protons, and neutrons are also made of even smaller structures that follow a similar "scale" ratio.

You're right that electrons, protons, and neutrons consist of something Even Smaller—but they don't have material value. They carry the value of a MEMORY IMPRINT.

More on this in my book (which, unfortunately, isn't finished yet).

It's nice to run into someone with a semi-similar perspective.
Sure, I'm missing elements to complete the beautiful mosaic, but since nobody knows everything, I can't be the one who does.😛
nimblemarlin17 nimblemarlin17 RegularOP
459 messages
joined Mar 2004
#19 ·
shadowfalcon33 said:You could have easily posted this over in the natural science sub.

Anyway, what does my high school physics teacher think about this whole atom theory thing?

We had a great professor, but he left right before we actually got to the heavy stuff. The replacement was, to put it mildly... completely unqualified to teach physics. I mean, how else do you explain spending half a semester just staring at mirrors?
Eric Wells3 Eric Wells3 Active Member
61 messages
joined Dec 2005
#20 ·
nimblemarlin17 said:The atom is essentially just a tiny bit of "nothingness."

Go ahead and slam your head against a brick wall and then we can discuss the tangible reality of matter...

just like my avatar😁

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads