The Nature of Spatial Content:
As a result of experiment and observation we are predisposed to thinking that nature abhors a vacuum, vacuum being unfilled void or space. By nature we mean the totality of all phenomena that exhibit behaviour. Vacuum, which we consider to be devoid of behaviour, we conclude to be hostile and unnatural. We take this position because our immediate environment is almost totally natural. It teems with phenomena exhibiting behaviour. But if we take the larger, God-like view of all there is, we find that vacuum is the dominant condition. What is common to our experience is that forces tend to flow towards matter. The God-like view of all there is would logically reverse polarities and hold that vacuum is natural, and what we call nature to be an imperfection of vacuum. To illustrate this distinction, consider vacuum to be at its most concentrated condition furthest removed from matter.
As we approach matter there is a gradual dilution of vacuum, in the case of the earth an atmospheric layer polluting the vacuum. As we reach the surface of solid matter, there is an abrupt paucity of vacuum, void remaining only in the interstitial spaces between conglomerate matter, between atomic particles, and at the smaller scale within atomic structures separating electrons from nuclei. So in matter we find an exhibition of defiance against vacuum, the exception that proves the rule. What is the rule? The rule is that vacuum (unfilled void or space) abhors nature, and flows to fill its absence. It is the energy of the flow of vacuum, attracted like water or air to areas of low resistance, that Newton called gravity and Einstein attributed to dimples in space. Newtons magnetic theory and Einsteins space-time curvature are metaphors describing their conclusions regarding a general tendency of matter to move and accelerate towards matter. Gravity is viewed as an attractive force because it impinges upon the observer as a matter of fact. Both Newton and Einstein are substantially correct; the mathematics works for them as indeed it has to for the thesis of this proposition, the difference being that, if one is truly attempting to describe the cosmos objectively, one must not take oneself or ones home planet as being the normal environment or natural condition in space, but rather an aberration of the dominant medium of the cosmos, vacuum. It is only by externalizing the observer from the event that he can view it objectively. A river is not a river when viewed from the centre of its action, it is an environment. The logic of the situation demands that, as in biology, one should establish the physiology of normality against which one can then compare departures from the norm. Newtons and Einsteins theories when measured by these standards are upside down. They still work, just as a good thermometer measures cold as efficiently as it measures heat; it is simply calibrated the wrong way since cold is the predominant and therefore normal condition and heat merely a reduction of cold, as an aberration. Logically what we call gravity is antigravity; matter is low-density, denatured (or natured if you prefer) vacuum, and what we call nature is the exception. We tend to think of vacuum as suction.
In the world of logical reality we, that matter, are the suckers struggling not to be blown away by the flow of vacuum. That flow is Nirvana from the Sanskrit nir, meaning out, and vati, meaning it blows. Small clues in accounting for the antagonism between science and religion!
[Abstracted from 'It: The Architecture of Existence'. ISBN 9781857566680. pp. 285-6.]
