Philosophy Discussion Forums

You constantly ask questions without actually making your objections clear. Space is a consequence of objects it can not exist without objects. Have you attempted to contact Bill Gaede?

Xris wrote:You constantly ask questions without actually making your objections clear. Space is a consequence of objects it can not exist without objects. Have you attempted to contact Bill Gaede?

Nor can objects exist without space.

Present awareness wrote:

Xris wrote:You constantly ask questions without actually making your objections clear. Space is a consequence of objects it can not exist without objects. Have you attempted to contact Bill Gaede?

Nor can objects exist without space.

But it is important to realise that to consider there is a space beyond the last object of mass is a metaphysical concept not a scientific reasoning.If you can't measure it, it does not exist.

Xris wrote:

Present awareness wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Nor can objects exist without space.

But it is important to realise that to consider there is a space beyond the last object of mass is a metaphysical concept not a scientific reasoning.If you can't measure it, it does not exist.

That is really the point, if it does not exist, it isn't there, and if it isn't there, we call it space. The problem arises when we try to name something which is not there, simply because there is nothing there to name. When we call space "nothing" it implies that there is something there, which we are calling nothing, but in reality, there is nothing there.

Present awareness wrote:

Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

But it is important to realise that to consider there is a space beyond the last object of mass is a metaphysical concept not a scientific reasoning.If you can't measure it, it does not exist.

That is really the point, if it does not exist, it isn't there, and if it isn't there, we call it space. The problem arises when we try to name something which is not there, simply because there is nothing there to name. When we call space "nothing" it implies that there is something there, which we are calling nothing, but in reality, there is nothing there.

Not sure if we are agreeing or not with such a difficult subject.So if I can express myself further. If you have no objects there is nothing. If you have two objects you have space. There is permanent relationship between objects of mass that is expressed. You can not have a relationship with nothing. You see light only when it arrives. Light, gravity is what space is filled with when you have two or more objects. Nothing is an impossible concept that can not be compared to space. Well not in my opinion.

Xris wrote:

Present awareness wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


That is really the point, if it does not exist, it isn't there, and if it isn't there, we call it space. The problem arises when we try to name something which is not there, simply because there is nothing there to name. When we call space "nothing" it implies that there is something there, which we are calling nothing, but in reality, there is nothing there.

Not sure if we are agreeing or not with such a difficult subject.So if I can express myself further. If you have no objects there is nothing. If you have two objects you have space. There is permanent relationship between objects of mass that is expressed. You can not have a relationship with nothing. You see light only when it arrives. Light, gravity is what space is filled with when you have two or more objects. Nothing is an impossible concept that can not be compared to space. Well not in my opinion.

I think I understand what you are getting at, in that we need two objects in order to see the space in between them. However, I don't see why space should suddenly not exist after the last visible thing we see in the universe. Suppose there was another universe outside of our ability to see it, because the light hasn't got here yet. Another universe perhaps 20 billion light years away? It would take another 7 billion years for the light to reach us. Once we see the light, could it be said that the space between us would suddenly appear like magic? If you travel through space and come to the last object, is it not possible to go past it? Is there a wall or some kind of force that prevents it?

Xris wrote: If you have no objects there is nothing. If you have two objects you have space. There is permanent relationship between objects of mass that is expressed. You can not have a relationship with nothing. You see light only when it arrives. Light, gravity is what space is filled with when you have two or more objects. Nothing is an impossible concept that can not be compared to space. Well not in my opinion.

Actually, you should say "If you have two objects you have distance". If you don't believe me, you should ask Bill Gaede yourself whether he agree or not that space is which don't have shape/space is nothing.

Present. If there is something beyond our event horizon it extends space. There is a relationship that can be measured.

Caesar there is no dispute that giving an undefined space the term nothing. It has to be measured, have distance.I have argued with Gaede and I am sure this is his view but I could be wrong.

Xris wrote:Present. If there is something beyond our event horizon it extends space. There is a relationship that can be measured.

Caesar there is no dispute that giving an undefined space the term nothing. It has to be measured, have distance.I have argued with Gaede and I am sure this is his view but I could be wrong.

Gaede disagree with this definition. I think he redefine the term "space". Recently during our conversation, he said space is that which don't have shape or simply as nothing is nothing.

Julius Caesar wrote:

Xris wrote:Present. If there is something beyond our event horizon it extends space. There is a relationship that can be measured.

Caesar there is no dispute that giving an undefined space the term nothing. It has to be measured, have distance.I have argued with Gaede and I am sure this is his view but I could be wrong.

Gaede disagree with this definition. I think he redefine the term "space". Recently during our conversation, he said space is that which don't have shape or simply as nothing is nothing.

I agree space has no intrinsic shape or value. But the use of the word nothing implies that distance is not measurable.An empty box has volume even if the box has nothing to be described. Gaede is attempting to explain that you can not bend empty space. Space time is an attempt to convince us that it has the ability to be influenced by gravity. You can not infliuence something that does not exist as you would expect with a fluid or gas.

I'm new here. I'm not a physicist or a philosopher, just a simple-minded computer programmer. I have been following the works of BG for some time and his concepts are interesting, however I don't quite understand some things. Please allow me to elaborate and perhaps someone can reply to help me grasp the concepts.

Under the rope hypothesis: - Shape is the inability to blend or to be continuous with space; possessing a surface or boundary; potential to have location. - Object is that which has shape. - EM ropes are physical objects. - EM ropes connect every atom in the universe to every other atom in the universe.

The things I don't understand are somewhat related, however I will list them as 3 points:

1) What constitutes a single physical object? From my limited understanding there must only be one object in the universe, and that is the EM rope. It seems there is no boundary that distinguishes the moon from the sun if they are "connected" by EM ropes. Connected implies they are in contact, and therefore should constitute a single physical object.

2) The term "EM ropes" (note the plural, which is used in BG's website and throughout his publications). Is there one EM rope, or are there multiple EM ropes? if they are connected then it seems there is only one. How is one rope distinguished from another.

3) The term "two" (eg: a concept is a relation between two or more objects). If we are not allowing math to pollute physics in a similar way to not allowing religion, then where is this concept of "two" coming from? I assume we cannot invoke "one plus one" without resorting to mathematical trickery.

Xris wrote:

Julius Caesar wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Gaede disagree with this definition. I think he redefine the term "space". Recently during our conversation, he said space is that which don't have shape or simply as nothing is nothing.

I agree space has no intrinsic shape or value. But the use of the word nothing implies that distance is not measurable.An empty box has volume even if the box has nothing to be described. Gaede is attempting to explain that you can not bend empty space. Space time is an attempt to convince us that it has the ability to be influenced by gravity. You can not infliuence something that does not exist as you would expect with a fluid or gas.

Btw empty box is an object. So, you agree empty space is absolute nothing because according to Bill Gaede we can't bend space. Correct?

Julius Caesar wrote:

Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

I agree space has no intrinsic shape or value. But the use of the word nothing implies that distance is not measurable.An empty box has volume even if the box has nothing to be described. Gaede is attempting to explain that you can not bend empty space. Space time is an attempt to convince us that it has the ability to be influenced by gravity. You can not infliuence something that does not exist as you would expect with a fluid or gas.

Btw empty box is an object. So, you agree empty space is absolute nothing because according to Bill Gaede we can't bend space. Correct?

Of course I agree, you can't bend space. There is nothing to bend. But the word nothing is the sticking point. Space is a distance that can be measured but not bent.

Julius Caesar wrote:

Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

I agree space has no intrinsic shape or value. But the use of the word nothing implies that distance is not measurable.An empty box has volume even if the box has nothing to be described. Gaede is attempting to explain that you can not bend empty space. Space time is an attempt to convince us that it has the ability to be influenced by gravity. You can not infliuence something that does not exist as you would expect with a fluid or gas.

Btw empty box is an object. So, you agree empty space is absolute nothing because according to Bill Gaede we can't bend space. Correct?

The word nothing has no value. Space is distance but I agree you can not bend something that has not got anything to bend.

Xris wrote:

Julius Caesar wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Btw empty box is an object. So, you agree empty space is absolute nothing because according to Bill Gaede we can't bend space. Correct?

The word nothing has no value. Space is distance but I agree you can not bend something that has not got anything to bend.

Gaede define nothing (i.e space) as that which has no shape. What do you think about space, is it absolute nothing?