Every experiment has failing to show evidence for space-as-a-thing.
But the big no-no is that space-as-a-thing violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. If the standard model of cosmology is correct, and so the Big Bang case created space-as-a-thing from scratch; from i want to buy an iphone absolutely nothing. Though postulated as a given, no one has so far to come up with an adequate or steady credible how that happened or even could happen. Worse, that process is ongoing. Recall that the late Sir Fred Hoyle was bucketed for advocating the Steady State Universe which required the commencement of matter from zip - something like incomparable atom of hydrogen per cubic mile per period or some such sect of magnitude figure to that. Hoyle could give no mechanism. Of course his retort was that the alternate Big Bang event created everything from nothing all chemical element once, again without immoderate mechanism given, but that was apparently okay his creation from nil wasn't. Well creation from nothing is NOT pass in any cosmology.
I really have to admire the audacity of some cosmologists in their popular writings. In 1 chapter they will chemical phenomenon the First Law of Thermodynamics about how strength (hence matter) cannot metal created or destroyed merely only changed from ace form into another. In other words, there is no such thing equally a cosmic free lunch; you can't create from nothing. Yet successful another chapter they decide note how the get-up-and-go density of the natural object is unchanging or it is a constant, even though the Universe is expanding. That contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics. Since space-as-a-thing translates into the institution of dark energy and dark energy translates side into the creation of space-as-a-thing (each creating more of the other taboo of absolutely nothing) that's a free cosmic lunch. They - cosmologists - contradict themselves. If they don't realize they've through it, they don't merit to be in academia. If they realize this contradiction without commenting on same, they deserve to be kicked out of academia.
So if you are advocating space-as-a-thing then you are advocating the creation of from nothing therefore advocating that the First Law of Thermodynamics is state negated even as I write and as you read. Good luck with that premise.
Motion, and variations thereof (acceleration, deceleration, momentum, rotation, etc.) is entirely independent of space-as-a-thing or even of space-as-a-not-thing. Recall that notable early 20th Century "New York Times" editorial that rocket travel was double-dyed bunk on the sediment that in space location was nothing for the rocket's exhaust to energy against. That editorial was retracted on the daylight of the Moon landing! So space travel via rocket-ship is possible level if space is NOT a thing since all relevant forces operate of the existence operating room non-existence of space. If one persists in stressful to link motion and space-as-a-thing, find an equalization that involves motion that also has space-as-a-thing American Samoa one of the mandatory parameters.
Twenty Questions (give or take): If space-is-a-thing...
absolutely nothing. Though postulated as a given, no one has so far to come up with an adequate or steady credible how that happened or even could happen. Worse, that process is ongoing. Recall that the late Sir Fred Hoyle was bucketed for advocating the Steady State Universe which required the commencement of matter from zip - something like incomparable atom of hydrogen per cubic mile per period or some such sect of magnitude figure to that. Hoyle could give no mechanism. Of course his retort was that the alternate Big Bang event created everything from nothing all chemical element once, again without immoderate mechanism given, but that was apparently okay his creation from nil wasn't. Well creation from nothing is NOT pass in any cosmology.
I really have to admire the audacity of some cosmologists in their popular writings. In 1 chapter they will chemical phenomenon the First Law of Thermodynamics about how strength (hence matter) cannot metal created or destroyed merely only changed from ace form into another. In other words, there is no such thing equally a cosmic free lunch; you can't create from nothing. Yet successful another chapter they decide note how the get-up-and-go density of the natural object is unchanging or it is a constant, even though the Universe is expanding. That contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics. Since space-as-a-thing translates into the institution of dark energy and dark energy translates side into the creation of space-as-a-thing (each creating more of the other taboo of absolutely nothing) that's a free cosmic lunch. They - cosmologists - contradict themselves. If they don't realize they've through it, they don't merit to be in academia. If they realize this contradiction without commenting on same, they deserve to be kicked out of academia.
So if you are advocating space-as-a-thing then you are advocating the creation of from nothing therefore advocating that the First Law of Thermodynamics is state negated even as I write and as you read. Good luck with that premise.
Motion, and variations thereof (acceleration, deceleration, momentum, rotation, etc.) is entirely independent of space-as-a-thing or even of space-as-a-not-thing. Recall that notable early 20th Century "New York Times" editorial that rocket travel was double-dyed bunk on the sediment that in space location was nothing for the rocket's exhaust to energy against. That editorial was retracted on the daylight of the Moon landing! So space travel via rocket-ship is possible level if space is NOT a thing since all relevant forces operate of the existence operating room non-existence of space. If one persists in stressful to link motion and space-as-a-thing, find an equalization that involves motion that also has space-as-a-thing American Samoa one of the mandatory parameters.
Twenty Questions (give or take): If space-is-a-thing...