OUR EXPANDING UNIVERSE: IN SPACE OR BY SPACE?

You will frequently encounter in astronomical and cosmological texts the idea that space or space-time is a thing, a flexible membrane type of thing that can influence the motion of objects, in fact carry the flotsam and jetsam of the Universe around. This flexi-space is increasing over time, expanding, and by carrying the bits and pieces that comprise the Universe, provides the reality behind the common phrase 'the expanding universe'. Unfortunately, space is not a thing and the consequences arising means the common mechanism for an expanding universe is nonsense.

In just about any introductory textbook on astronomy or primer on cosmology, you're bound to read that the Universe is expanding (true enough) because space itself is expanding, and like dots painted on a balloon being blown up, the flotsam and jetsam of the Universe is spreading apart, somehow 'glued' to that expanding space. How any astronomer or cosmologist can write such claptrap with a straight face is quite beyond me.

My basic premise here is that if space itself is expanding, then space itself is a thing. Common sense tells you that space is not a thing. You cannot see it, hear it, touch it, feel it or taste it. If you think space is a thing, well grab hold of some of it and try to stretch or expand it (but do it in private or others will doubt your sanity). Whether you talk about 3-D space (volume) or the four dimensional space-time (time being the fourth dimension), it is just the empty stage, IMHO, where the drama of real things is played out.

To my way of thinking, not-things (like space, time and dimensions* in general) can be subdivided indefinitely. They are continuous. No matter the length, area or volume, whatever you have can be divided in half and in half again and again and again and you still have a length, area or volume. Things have a built-in limit as to how far that thing in question can be divided down before you hit fundamental bedrock. Sooner or later you hit and enter the realm of the electron, those quarks, neutrinos, photons, gluons, gravitons and other force and matter particles that cannot be divided down any farther. These are things.

EXPANDING SPACE

So if space itself is expanding, well that's nonsense because...

There's space between your ears, but that doesn't mean you're getting a swelled head!

You move through existing space when going from home to the office, to the supermarket or going to a foreign city on business or vacation. When commuting to the office, the distance between home and office doesn't increase on a daily basis.

The Moon orbits the Earth through existing space. The Moon is getting farther away of the Earth on a daily basis. Even there's a lot of space between the Earth and the Moon, and the Moon is getting further away from the Earth, that's not because space is expanding, but because of tidal forces.

The Earth/Moon pair orbits the Sun through existing space. There's a lot of interplanetary space between the Earth/Moon system and the Sun, but the Earth/Moon to Sun distance hasn't changed in thousands of millennia.

The Sun (and solar system) orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy though existing space. There's a lot of interstellar space between the Sun and the galactic centre but the Sun isn't getting any more distant from that centre.

So far, so good: even astronomers and cosmologists will agree with that assessment. But all of a sudden, with a snap of their fingers, once out in intergalactic space things move apart, or rather galaxies (of which our Milky Way is one of billions and billions) move apart from other galaxies as if being carried piggyback on an expanding intergalactic space (which however is the same space as interplanetary and interstellar space).

Actually there's an exception of every galaxy moving away from every other galaxy - clusters of galaxies that are cheek-by-jowl are bound together by their mutual gravity, and sometime in such a cluster galaxies can approach each other. A case in point has our own Milky Way Galaxy, and the Andromeda Galaxy on a collision course, but rest easy, the intersection won't happen for another five billion years - give or take a million.

But wait, isn't every galaxy in the observable universe bound or attracted by gravity to every other galaxy? I mean the force of gravity doesn't extend outwards and then at some point fall off a cliff, or get shut down and off.

If space is expanding, then space is a thing with properties. What are the properties of a thing that expands?

Most common are 2-D structures. You put extra air in your tires, it's the rubber that expands; while blowing up a balloon, well it's that membrane-like surface that stretches; you have stretching fabrics (like the elastic in your underwear). The oft used cosmology textbook analogy is painting dots (representing the galaxies) on the surface of an expanding balloon (representing expanding space), and as the balloon expands the 'galactic' dots get further apart. But the analogy fails because the balloon's expanding surface is a something. Besides, all 2-D analogies aren't worth the paper they're written on since 1) the actual Universe is 3-D and 2) there are 3-D analogies available.

So there are pretty common 3-D analogies. An entire rock will expand, not just the surface, sitting out in the hot sun; a rising cake or soufflé or baking raisin bread are common examples in the kitchen. The analogy oft given is that of baking raisin bread, where the raisins are the galaxies and the expanding bread is akin to space, and thus the 'galactic' raisins get further and further apart as the bread expands. But this analogy fails too because the raisin bread is a something.

Now when something expands, it gets thinner or more dilute. As you keep putting on weight, the elastic in your underwear stretches thinner and thinner. In the case of the raisin loaf, if you start with a 500 gram mass of dough in a container of say 300 cubic centimetres, what you end up with is 500 grams in say a volume of 500 cubic centimetres. The same amount of stuff, in a larger volume, means that the stuff has been diluted.

If space is a something, and space itself is expanding or stretching, then space must be getting thinner and/or more dilute over time. If however, this space-as-a-something remains constant over time, even though it's expanding, then you're getting a free lunch - something from nothing. That extra space is being manufactured by forces unknown out of nothing at all. Claptrap!

SPACE-TIME

Anyone who is anyone who knows a bit about gravity and General Relativity knows that space-time is flexible. Mass 'tells' space-time how to flex; how space-time flexes 'tells' mass how to move. However, that also implies that space-time is a thing, a physical medium that can be manipulated.

Matter and energy and associated forces and force particles are two sides of the same coin as related by Einstein's famous equation. So, that should be sufficient for any and all actions, reactions, interactions, etc. to be explainable without resorting to warped space-time. However, let's look at the most well known illustration of alleged warped space-time, the experimental observation that proved Einstein's prediction that Mass indeed 'tells' space-time how to flex and how space-time flexes 'tells' mass how to move. The case in point was the deflection of photons of light emitted by a star whose light passed very close to our Sun. That deflection meant that observers on Earth saw the star ever so slightly out of position while the Sun was in the line-of-sight vicinity. (All this was observed during a solar eclipse; otherwise the starlight would have been drowned out by the Sun's light.) The explanation: starlight photons (mass or energy) want to go straight but space-time was warped and thus those photons got deflected from the straight and narrow. Well, that's one way of looking at it.

On the other hand, the starlight's light-wave photons are things; the Sun is a thing; the Sun's gravity is a thing. So objects, matter and energy, things existing in space and time that pass within the Sun's gravity, should be affected, in this case deflected from their straight and narrow path. Why invoke warped space-time? It might be a nice way of looking at things, but airbrushing isn't confined to just the fashion industry!

Roll an iron ball past a magnet and you'll get a deflection from the straight and narrow - like with the photon and the Sun. But roll a marble past the same magnet and the marble will continue on straight and true. So, the trajectory of the iron ball or the marble vs. the magnet (part of the electromagnetic force) has nothing to do with warped space-time, though the action took place in space-time.

Take your basic trilogy of quarks (in a neutron or proton) who love each other so dearly that they can't stand to be apart. If you force them apart, the strong nuclear force which normally keeps the quarks cheek-by-jowl will just get stronger the farther apart you pull the trio of quarks apart - like a rubber band being stretched. When you release your hold on this threesome, they snap back together. Their path deviates back from what you dictated - nothing to do with warped space-time though the action took place in space-time.

Or take the decay of an unstable atomic nucleus. The castoff particles hit other unstable nuclei cascading off more bits and pieces which hit more unstable nuclei on the brink, etc. You get a chain reaction, even perhaps a nuclear blast. That's the weak nuclear force in action. Again, that's not dependent on warped space-time though the chain reaction takes place in space-time.

But let's back to the warping of space-time which seems allegedly to be the providence of gravity and just gravity.

But what kind of flexing, or space-time warping could account for most (not all) galaxies running away from most (not all) other galaxies - actual observations of the expanding Universe. None that is obvious and leaps to mind other than a sort of infinite Mexican sombrero type structure where all large clumps of matter (most galaxies) start off at the top of the hat and roll off, to the north, south, east and west, and all points of the compass in-between, down to the - well the 'down' doesn't end. But somehow you have to picture that in 3-D since the surface of the 'sombrero', where all the action is, is 2-D.

CONSEQUENCES

Once you accept the idea that the notion of space itself is expanding - space itself creating more space out of nothing - is total nonsense, then certain consequences follow. One is that the stuff of the Universe is expanding through existing space rather than the stuff of the Universe being carried piggyback on the back of space. If the stuff of the Universe is expanding through existing space, the stuff of the Universe has always expanded through existing space. Existing space was present throughout the Universe's expansion right back unto the beginning - that Big Bang event. If space existed at the time of the Big Bang event then space existed before the Big Bang event, as the Big Bang event needed space to bang into, just like any other explosive event you can think of, from a firecracker to an H-Bomb to a supernova has to happen in existing space. Therefore there was an existence before the Big Bang. There was a before the Big Bang and whatever cosmology accounts for the Big Bang needs to take that into account.

IS THERE AN OBSERVATIONAL TEST?

Is there any actual observational evidence that proves conclusively that it is space expanding and not flotsam and jetsam moving apart through existing space? No. But I can think of a possible test or two that might conclude the issue. If space is expanding then objects that are approaching each other (like the Milky Way Galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy) due to mutual gravity or because of intrinsic motion, should be fighting against the grain and be approaching each other more slowly than would otherwise be the case. Or, on the other hand, two objects receding apart, like the Earth and the Moon (due to tidal forces) are going with the grain and should be separating more rapidly than otherwise would be the case. I've yet to read any account of this sort of measurement and observational confirmation which would only arise if the velocities of the Milky Way/Andromeda pair or Earth/Moon pair were indeed anomalous. The latter experiment, the increasing Earth/Moon separation should be a relatively easy experiment to do. Due to the reflective mirrors left on the lunar surface by the Apollo moon-walkers we know the Earth-Moon distance to extreme precision. It should be straightforward whether the Moon is receding from the Earth faster than tidal forces can account for.

CONCLUSIONS

There's a very solid principle in science known as Occam's Razor, which pretty much states than when faced with a pot-full of competing ideas or explanations, bet the family farm on the one which makes the least assumptions and seems the most straightforward. In other words, "keep it simple, stupid!" Applying Occam's Razor, there's a very easy and common-sense answer to this claptrap. All objects at any scale move through existing space. Space just is - it contains things from the energy of the (not so perfect) vacuum, to interplanetary/interstellar/intergalactic gas and dust, to solar systems, to quasars, to the largest of galactic clusters. Therefore, if now, then way back when. The origin of the Universe also took place in existing space. The Big Bang event did not create space for space is not a tangible thing that can be created. Further, there's no astronomical, observable test (apart from the possibilities I suggested above and variations on those themes) that can distinguish between expanding space, and matter expanding through space.

And if you are of a religious frame of mind (and I'm not), well God couldn't have created the heavens and the earth; life the universe and everything, unless God had some existing space in which to work. God Himself took up space.

P.S. That space is not a thing was demonstrated back in the late 1880's by the famous Albert Michelson and Edward Morley experiment. The idea was that since light or rather light-waves travelled through space (i.e. - from the Sun to the Earth), they had to be carried along by a something, just like water-waves are carried along by the medium we call water and sound-waves need air, liquid or a solid to propagate them. So light-waves, by analogy, needed a medium to carry them, which was called the ether or the ether wind, which was space. Now the idea was that the Earth, in orbit around the Sun, would sometimes be moving with the ether grain and sometimes against the ether grain. The speed of light should therefore vary when measured on Earth depending on whether light was moving parallel with the ether grain, parallel against the ether grain, or crossing perpendicular to the ether grain as Earth was orbiting through the ether grain. Of course the null results shocked the physics community for it showed no variation at all in the velocity of light regardless of the time of year it was measured; therefore no ether; therefore waves were being transmitted through nothing. The null result eventually led a young Einstein into his radical proposal that the speed of light was constant anywhere and everywhere to any and all observers, but that's another story. The Michelson/Morley experiment has been repeated many times with ever more accuracy - still a null and void result.

*Space, a 3-D volume, is composed of a trilogy of dimensions - up/down, back/front, left/right; or latitude, longitude and altitude. Area is two dimensional (2-D); length is 1-D or just one dimension. Now, are dimensions a thing? If not, then volume (space), area and length are not things either.

ADDENDUM

BINGO!

In an effort to explain about the concept of expanding space, astronomer Philip Plait inadvertently presented the exact opposite argument which is that space can't be expanding (and therefore the expanding universe must be expanding throughout existing space), a point of view I've been advocating seemingly forever. Here's Plait's extract.

"Space expands, but this expansion can be countered by gravity. You might expect that, say, two stars orbiting each other will get farther apart as space expands between them. However, that's not the case. Since the two objects have gravity, and they are bound to each other - that is, their gravity holds them together - space doesn't expand between them." [Plait's emphasis.]*

*Plait, Philip; Death from the Skies! These Are the Ways the World Will End...; Viking, New York; 2008; p.278:

So, taken to its logical conclusion, space is not expanding between the Earth and the Moon. Space is not expanding between the Earth and the Sun. Space is not expanding between the Sun's solar system and the triple star Centauri system. Space is not expanding between the Sun and the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy, space is not expanding between the Milky Way Galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy, space is not expanding between the local group of cluster of galaxies (containing the Milky Way and Andromeda) and the nearby Virgo Cluster of galaxies, etc. Any two bits of matter have mutual gravity and so therefore there can be no expanding space anywhere, since gravity is everywhere.

    "Unfortunately, space is not a thing..."

    Says who? A simulation called John Prytz? I challenge you to prove your statement. IMHO, Sir Newton and I should be able to convince you otherwise.

    "My basic premise here is that if space itself is expanding, then space itself is a thing". Correct. It is expanding. IMHO, Edwin Hubble and I should be able to convince you.

    "To my way of thinking, not-things (like space, time and dimensions* in general) can be subdivided indefinitely. They are continuous. No matter the length, area or volume, whatever you have can be divided in half and in half again and again and again and you still have a length, area or volume. Things have a built-in limit as to how far that thing in question can be divided down before you hit fundamental bedrock".

    Correct. In other words, IF there is a limit to the divisibility of space, then it is a 'thing'. IMHO, Euclid, Proclus, Aristotle, Zeno of Elea and my humble self can formulate paradoxes, the headache which you will suffer may then allow you to accept that space is not infinitely divisible.

    "I mean the force of gravity doesn't extend outwards and then at some point fall off a cliff, or get shut down and off."

    No, the force of gravity diminishes as the inverse square of the distance according to Sir Newton. Then you have escape velocity to think about at each distance.

    "If space is a something, and space itself is expanding or stretching, then space must be getting thinner and/or more dilute over time..."

    If you listen well, the Great Simulator would have told you, "in my cosmological model, there is more where that thing is coming from"! And at the end of the program, everything will disappear to nothingness. Get your cosmology right.

    "Therefore there was an existence before the Big Bang. There was a before the Big Bang and whatever cosmology accounts for the Big Bang needs to take that into account."

    You have not been listening to the Great Simulator. Nothing, not even the Great Simulator was existing before the Big Bang. I can understand your difficulty in appreciating this. Many sighted people find it difficult to appreciate what blindness is. Blindness is not 'everywhere appearing dark'. Blindness is seeing Nothing, not even darkness. Similarly, a complete absence of space can be difficult to contemplate or imagine by those who have experienced what space is.

    "That space is not a thing was demonstrated back in the late 1880's by the famous Albert Michelson and Edward Morley experiment."

    Sir, that is my territory. Please don't say what you don't know. A null and void result does not lead to your conclusion. Replace light with sound and you also get a null and void result.

    "Since the two objects have gravity, and they are bound to each other - that is, their gravity holds them together - space doesn't expand between them - Philip Plait".

    Sir Isaac says to tell you: "...instead of you and Philip to thank space for preventing the relentless tendency of the Moon to crash on your heads, like the apple that crashed on my head while I was pondering the Principia at Cambridge in 1687, you have not been extremely ungrateful to space. Space has been doing a difficult job preventing the earth vs. sun from crashing into each other, same for earth vs. moon. Indeed, even right up to the atomic level. Who do you think has been preventing the proton and the electron from sealing their romance with a wedding? You truly think a principle (Pauli's) is enough to have done that? Perhaps, if space had sent you a bill to pay for keeping all those attractive forces at bay, a bill to pay for transmitting light waves to you from distant light sources without any matter-based wiring, you may have been more appreciative. You simulated humans rate strength based on how much noise or disturbance caused. But you see, when you are truly powerful (omnipotent) and all pervasive (omnipresent) you don't need to make noise. As the saying goes, empty barrels make the loudest noise. Space is silent but if you want to "see" it, you will. One of the areas you will see my the tug of war between gravity and I is the nature of the harmonic motion in orbits. You may recall that Hooke (of Hooke's law fame), with whom I had some disagreement about priority, showed that where such a motion exists, two forces at least must be at play. That is why, one restoring force preventing escape comes to play at aphelion (gravity) and another force who is unacknowledged by you comes to play at perihelion to prevent collapse. All this I have calculated, although I can't readily lay my hands on where I wrote the calculations"

    Regards,

    Akinbo

    There is certainly a great deal of evidence to support the notion of an expanding universe, a la, the red shift.

    There are other cosmologies, however.

    A contracting universe is also consistent with these observations. However, a contractin universe is completely different from an expanding universe...actually, not so different as just oppostite.

    Contraction as a means of universal force makes much more sense...and so I like contraction.

    Akinbo,

    http://www.aip.de/~lie/Lectures/Michelsonkeller.e.html may tell you that Albert Abraham Michelson performed the decisive experiment already in 1881 in Potsdam near Berlin (because Berlin was too noisy).

    A. Abraham M. was not just born in the Prussian province Posen where the language was German but he also visited Berlin, Heidelberg, and Paris during his sabbatical.

    When he didn't agree with Einstein's SR, he did perhaps not agree with the given argument about observed aberration.

    You wrote: "Replace light with sound and you also get a null and void result."

    Is this correct?

    Eckard

    • [deleted]

    • Post #145

    Akinbo,

    Space is a not-thing, just an abstract mental concept that we deem useful as a sort of container in which we place real things, like stars and galaxies.

    I call space a not-thing because space has no structure and it has no substance. You cannot detect space with any of your sensory apparatus - you cannot see space; you cannot hear space; you cannot touch space; you cannot taste space; you cannot smell space. Space has no properties like mass and colour and associated things that you associate with things.

    Not even instrumentation that augments your senses can detect with any greater accuracy or in any greater detail any properties that space could potentially have.

    You cannot create space. There isn't even a theoretical equation that could tell you how, in principle, to create space. That makes sense if space is a not-thing.

    It is stated that space has a property we call "dark energy". Space expands because of the anti-gravity or repulsive nature of dark energy which creates more space which in turn creates more dark energy which creates more space which creates more dark energy, and so on and so on until infinity. It should be clear that this scenario is in total violation to those conservation laws you had to learn in high school. If space is a thing and space is expanding then you are getting a free lunch - something for nothing.

    Finally, there is no observational test that can distinguish between matter (like galaxies) expanding in space, being carried piggyback style by space, or expanding through the nothingness of existing space.

    Thus I conclude that space has all the reality of Wednesday.

    John Prytz

    John,

    Your description of space rather pre-dates space travel and present physics. Sure it's not visible to spectroscopy and can't 'change' EM propagation speed (so is NOT the old 'ether', and is OK with SR), but we now have far more sophisticated methods!

    Concepts like dark energy, the ISM, IGM, QV, pair production, the Higg's Field etc etc are all there because there's good evidence for some sub 'matter' condensate, and we find effects not otherwise rationalizable.

    You're right in that its' not 'condensed' matter of course, but claiming more than that is now less well supported than otherwise. It's 'existence' rationalises many findings. A more detailed rationalisation is in my 2012 finalist essay. Do ask if you feel the need for any more references.

    Much Ado About Nothing.

    Best wishes.

    Peter

    Thanks Eckard for that link to the 1881 experiment as I am seeing it for the first time.

    What I meant by saying replace light with sound is because with sound, we also do not observe drifting of air or sound reaching us quicker or with a Doppler blue shift in the direction of the motion of the earth around the sun. This is also a null finding like that for light. I propose this to guide towards a solution for the dilemma we have with light.

    I didn't quite get the aspect about aberration and its relevance.

    John Prytz,

    Space is a not-thing, just an abstract mental concept...

    - Well, you didn't say what has been preventing the moon from falling on our heads. And talking about apples in a figurative way, how tall will its imaginary tree have to grow that the apple no longer feels inclined to fall on our heads? Can an apple on a tree 1 light year tall fall on our heads or does gravity give up the struggle at some point? What point or altitude could this be?

    - Then earlier in one of your responses, you agreed that a Simulated Universe would likely be digital and that the pixel cannot be of zero dimension. You also agreed that it would be impossible to build an arena where simulated activity was taking place from zero-sized pixels, neither can the humans, machines be built from zero-sized pixels.

    If this position is correct and our description and study of space which we call geometry has much to learn from Euclid's 'Elements' (definitions 1-7?), then the 'point' the basic unit of space will not be abstract, it will not be of zero size and it will not be infinitely divisible into parts (i.e. it will be 'partless', unlike other things than can have parts). It will therefore satisfy your definition of what a 'thing' can be. It will be the pixel of a digital universe!

    And if the Great Simulator was as economical as Mother Nature is known to be, it would not make the container from some type of things and the contents from another type of thing. It will use that one thing in various possible configurations to create the illusion of many things. See the first few lines of Leibniz Monadology for some of his thoughts on the most fundamental unit of nature. Structure and Arena can be economically built from the same type of 'atom', just as the fishes and the oceans can be constructed from basically the same fundamental units.

    Forget about using sensory apparatus to decide. Only your brain and reductio arguments can. After all, viruses cannot see, cannot hear, don't taste, don't smell. Neither do neutrinos have mass or colour.

    I have already pointed out some deciding properties in my first post.

    Does space vibrate and transmit waves? Do you believe in GR and its hypothetical gravitational waves? They are said to be vibrations of space-time. If space-time can vibrate, surely the components of the amalgam in the GR construct must also be capable of vibrating. And how come vibrations of this nature, i.e. light waves and gravitational waves, both travel at c? Does that co-incidence not say something?

    And talking about, "There isn't even a theoretical equation that could tell you how, in principle, to create space.". There appears to be. Looking at the definition of entropy, S as the logarithm of the number of different possible arrangements, W (S =klogW) and the second law proposition that S under certain circumstances can be increased. If S can be increased by some process, W must increase in tandem. On the screen you are using for your simulation, when all the possible arrangements have been exhausted, the equations of the second law COMPEL that the digital screen must increase in size.

    So before calling Space a Wednesday solve some of those paradoxes. You may take a first look at Zeno's Dichotomy paradox and offer what solution would work in a Simulated, digital universe.

    Peter,

    I read the paper you mentioned and commented. Is the electron's orbit in the atom elliptical with the nucleus at one focus? I read long ago, that Arnold Sommerfeld believed it was before Quantum Mechanics came to town.

    Regards,

    Akinbo

    (I made some typos in my post because of typing in a hurry. In a real universe, not a simulated one, electricity can be in short supply)

    Akinbo,

    Michelson tried and failed to measure what was called aether wind, i.e. the motion of earth relative to a hypothetical light-carrying medium. Air is a sound-carrying medium to which the velocity of sound relates. Maxwell had suspected that there is a light-carrying medium - the aether - too. There are still experts who prefer to imagine such medium attached at the earth. This would explain Michelson's null result. Michelson himself early concluded: There is no aether that is fixed on the space in which the earth moves around the sun. In his 1887 paper with Morley, he nonetheless approximately calculated the expected effect of the hypothetical aether wind with a "correction" that was added already in Paris 1881 and also by Lorentz.

    Obviously he didn't trust in his own conclusion. Lorentz and before him FitzGerald tried to rescue the aether with the hypothesis of length contraction.

    In case of sound in air no corresponding null result can be measured. The time that sound requires to travel from A to B depends on the velocity v of wind, not just on the constant velocity c for air.

    I reiterate that the velocity of light in empty space does not depend on something else than the distance between B at the moment of arrival minus A at the moment of emission divided by the time elapsed between emission and arrival. Notice, I refer just to the difference between the positions A and B, not to absolute values. There is no universal natural reference for space available.

    What about aberration, Paul Marmet might have explained it well.

    Incidentally, Michelson's birthplace Strelno near Gnesen is not far away from Prinzenthal near Bromberg where my grandmother was born before Posen got Polish.

    Eckard

    Eckard,

    I agree with what you posted, except some areas for you to think about...

    Maxwell had suspected that there is a light-carrying medium - the aether

    Aether is not the only light carrying medium. Glass is a light carrying medium, same as water. Both of which are 'normal' matter. Then empty space free of matter also carries light. Could there be other forms of matter in the universe that can carry light and be abundant in the cosmos?

    In case of sound in air no corresponding null result can be measured.

    Why do you say this? Assuming still air, with "Air is a sound-carrying medium to which the velocity of sound relates", since as you "imagine such medium attached at the earth. This would explain Michelson's null result", it means if Michelson used sound, instead of light for experiment he would get a null result too.

    Notice, I refer just to the difference between the positions A and B, not to absolute values. There is no universal natural reference for space available.

    Let us leave light for measuring distance between A and B. Will a metre rod measure different distances in different parts of the universe? If not, what forces the distance to be the SAME measure everywhere? IMHO therefore there is ' a universal natural reference for length (space) available.

    John Prytz,

    Perhaps you may be inclined to do us one of your beautiful posts on: WHAT IS A THING FUNDAMENTALLY?

    In doing this, note that taste, smell, visibility are not fundamental. Decompose a bowl of soup into its fundamentals and all taste, flavor and appetizing look are lost. Yet, it remains a thing. Even mass, can be lost via E = mc^2. Newton seem to have narrowed it down to: A thing is what can act and can be acted upon also. Others, say what has the property of 'extension' is a thing and what does not is a not-thing. More later...

    Akinbo

    Akinbo,

    Aether was not just thought as universal light carrying medium in empty space but also as having somewhere at least one natural point of reference.

    There is a decisive difference between such medium and a limitless line, area, or space without such reference.

    The air within a flying air plane exemplifies how a dragged medium with boundaries or other points of reference on the line of motion would work. Norbert Feist even measured the effect of relative velocity between a car and the air localized with respect to it. Physicist like Lorentz argued convincingly against the dragged aether idea. In case of light there are alternatives that explain the null result:

    - Mysterious length contraction or

    - There is no universal point in empty space to which one could the velocity of light propagation refer to in case of just linear motion.

    Yes, "there is a universal natural reference for length (space) available." However, the meter can only measure length, i.e. differences between points, not absolute coordinates with reference to a non-arbitrarily preferred point. Einstein failed to clearly explain what was wrong with the aether, and he gave to Lorentz gamma an unfounded interpretation.

    Eckard

    Eckard,

    Aether as formulated has its shortcomings.

    When you say, "In case of light there are alternatives that explain the null result:

    - Mysterious length contraction or

    - There is no universal point in empty space to which one could the velocity of light propagation refer to in case of just linear motion".

    Can a matter medium like dark matter bound to earth like air is bound, do for the case of light what air does for the case of sound be an alternative? If it can't why not?

    Akinbo

    Peter,

    Thanks for your comments. Here are a few more of mine regarding the nature of space. Is space a thing, or is space a not-thing?

    If space were really a thing you should be able to detect some resistance as you try to move through it. Even if the 'density' of space is too low for you to detect personally, sensitive instrumentation should. Alas, no resistance factor has been detected, which just gives further credibility to the Michaelson-Morley Experiment which first gave rise to observational evidence suggestive that space was a not-thing. To repeat, there is no actual evidence in support of the idea that space is a thing.

    Well what about that famous prediction by Einstein and confirmed by experimental observation about the bending of light in a gravitational field. Well, light is a thing, and gravity is a thing, so it is no surprise that gravity can have an influence over light. That doesn't require the concept of space-as-a-thing; space to be a sort of flexible membrane in order to accomplish this.

    When a cosmologist gets up in front of an audience of their peers and actually creates some space, or provides observational evidence or at least puts up an equation that shows how it could theoretically be done - well till then the concept of space-as-a-thing is nonsense, virtually pseudo-science.

    And therein lies a tale of the double standard. When confronted by pseudo-scientific claims, if they don't duck and run for cover first, most scientists shrilly scream out "show me your evidence; show me your Evidence; show me your EVIDENCE!". Okay cosmologists, your turn. Show me your evidence that the concept of space-is-a-thing has validity. Show me your evidence that requires cosmic expansion BY space as opposed to cosmic expansion THROUGH space.

    The consequences of all of this is that if the Big Bang event did not, could not, create its own space-as-a-thing, then the Big Bang event happened in pre-existing space and therefore there was a before the Big Bang.

    Given all that I have now said on this subject, if you were to apply Occam's Razor to the question, which side of the fence seems to have the greener grass?

    John Prytz

    John P, Akinbo,

    It is not my business to tell you the in principle more than a century old but still valid arguments against hypotheses like dragged aether and expanding space. After I distrusted Michelson's null result of 1881 and later, I looked for a reasonable explanation and arrived at the overlooked role of the missing point of reference instead of a medium of reference like air which has of course such a point. Akinbo seems to dislike my finding because he loves his intuition that dark matter might constitute an aether that is dragged with the earth.

    I am sorry, I don't have an alternative model of cosmology. I am just dealing with possible logical inconsistencies with current tenets.

    Akinbo,

    What paradox do you attribute to Euclid? I rather blame Parmenides and his pupil Zeno for imprecise thinking.

    Eckard

    Eckard,

    I did not really attribute paradox to Euclid, but paradoxes come from misinterpretation of his definitions. I discussed this a bit in my 2013 essay, "On the road not taken".

    What imprecise thinking do you attribute to Parmenides and Zeno? Do you have a precise thinking solution to Zeno's Dichotomy Argument and his Arrow paradox? I am not talking of the mathematical solutions that lead to the imprecise infinitely reaching nearer and nearer a target.

    Regards,

    Akinbo

    MORE ABOUT DARK ENERGY AND THE EXPANSION OF SPACE-AS-A-THING

    Why is the modern standard model of cosmology a pseudo-science? Basically because it is advocating something akin to a perpetual motion machine - even worse. A standard pseudo-scientific perpetual motion machine operates at 100% efficiency. Energy input equals energy output and energy output is recycled back into energy input. There is no waste energy; no heat loss. The cosmos is even worse. Energy output exceeds energy input. The cosmos is way more than 100% efficient! Toss in 100 units of energy and you get 200 units of energy output (invented figures but it conveys the idea). In the case of the cosmos, the energy in question has been termed "dark energy", and dark energy is created by space-that-is-a-thing and dark energy in turn creates more space-that-is-a-thing, and the cosmic perpetual motion machine just keeps on keeping on.

    How does space-which-is-a-thing create ever more dark energy and how does dark energy create more space-which-is-a-thing and where the heck does all of this stuff come from? Who knows! But the concept IMHO is pseudo-scientific nonsense. How do you get around the paradox of creating something from nothing?

    While on the 'how' questions, how did the Big Bang event create space - assuming space to be a thing of substance and structure. Again, who knows! And a 'what' question: What is space-that-is-a-thing composed of? Who knows! Space clearly has no relationship to the standard model of particle physics. It's not composed of fermions or bosons nor any of the standard four forces associated with particle physics.

    But here's an oddity. One needs to get away from the idea that space is just out there - it is up close and personal too. Space-that-is-a-thing however is not only around you but is inside of you, so it shouldn't be too difficult for some bright spark to 'capture' some and put it to the standard laboratory tests. How can something that's literally in front of your nose be so unknowable?

    Is space-that-is-a-thing and dark energy the same thing? If not, what is dark energy and what is it composed of and how does it relate to the standard model of particle physics? Just calling something "dark energy" doesn't explain it. And like space-that-is-a-thing, dark energy should also be all around and inside of you. It can't be that difficult therefore to isolate some. It's not as if you have to travel into intergalactic space to get a beaker full of the stuff.

    Here's another nail hammering down the coffin containing the space-that-is-a-thing concept. We've all seen the analogy of space-that-is-a-thing being a rubber sheet with a bowling ball distorting the flat shape of the rubber and a marble sent rolling across the rubber sheet in the direction of the bowling ball. The straight path trajectory of the marble is altered. The marble curves into 'orbit' around the bowling ball assuming it doesn't just curve around and fly past. If the former, the marble will eventually go 'crashing' into the bowling ball and not maintain any orbit for very long. In any event, the marble heads inward toward the bowling ball. By analogy, shouldn't our Moon be spiralling in towards the Earth much like our artificial satellite orbits eventually decay? Alas for the rubber sheet analogy of space-that-is-a-thing, our Moon is moving away from the Earth a few centimetres per year, not moving closer.

    I do think at times that modern cosmologists have gotten so wrapped up in their technical essays of complex mathematical equations and jargon that they have totally forgotten much of what they were taught in their high school science classes, like there's no such thing as a cosmic free lunch.

    Akinbo,

    We left the topic. Nonetheless I will clarify what I consider wrong in perhaps all of Zeno's paradoxes. If he didn't live already from 490 to 430 i.e. before Euclid (325-275) I would blame Zeno for not understanding that a point is what has no parts and a line is therefore not composed of points. Incidentally, for the same reason I am not a presentist.

    Don't keep me for arrogant. I am aware of making mistakes too. However, Zeno tried to defend the inability of Parmenides to distinguish between concrete reality and abstract notions.

    Eckard

    SPACE, AN UNSUNG PARTICIPANT IN THE UNIVERSE?

    "I wish we could derive the rest of the phenomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from mechanical principles; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend upon certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain; but I hope the principles here laid down will afford some light either to that or some truer method of philosophy" - Sir Isaac Newton.

    It is human to acclaim only participants that are noisy or shiny or have a good or bad smell. But only near super-humans like Newton know that the most important participants may not fall into this category, which is why he says in the quote above that these participants can only be apprehended by the inner senses using the power of reason.

    It is true that space has no taste, it has no smell, it has no colour and makes no noise. But can its participation in the drama unfolding in the universe be discerned using the same kind of reasoning from mechanical principles? The view that space is not a nothing comes broadly under the label 'substantivalism'. There are sub-groups, some of which include General relativitists, for whom the substance is then 'space-time', and not just space. Newton, himself in many respects was the arch-priest of this view. In his Scholium and the Principia, he put forward his views using causes, effects and properties for argument, section 5.

    I have a substantivalist tendency and with good scientific reasons of my own. This thread is for cosmological topics, but as it has been alluded here that space is nothing, I think it necessary to make some counter presentation to the rational and lucid but IMHO misleading arguments claiming space is nothing. Not to repeat Newton's arguments, I present here evidence from what we can see and evaluate with our eyes - evidence from gravitational orbits, which if interpreted dispassionately indicate the possible roles space may be playing, aside the cosmological roles ascribed to it.

    1. THE SHAPE OF ORBITS

    Motion according to Newton's first law can continue perpetually unless a frictional force acts to bring the body to rest. Orbital motion was desired to be analogous to the linear motion of Newton's first law of motion in a straight line and would consequently be circular in shape (the form that preserves an equi-potential orbit) and continue perpetually without being driven (a sort of perpetuum mobile?). Alas, orbits are not circular but elliptical in shape. Kepler also desired a circle, but Mother Nature presented us with the ellipse. Perhaps, there is a puzzle in this elliptical gift?

    Reasoning from mechanical principles implies such a shape of orbital motion is not according to Newton's first law. The motion is under action of a force or of forces.

    2. CENTRIPETAL/ CENTRIFUGAL FORCES

    In gravitational orbits, Newton mathematically showed that a centripetal force equal in magnitude to mrω2 was operational, where m is the mass of the orbiter, r its radius from the hub and ω its angular velocity. A centripetal force, like all forces has direction, which is radially inwards to the centre of the circle.

    From the laws for circular motion in which a centripetal force is present, there must necessarily be a centrifugal force which will be equal and opposite in effect to the centripetal force so that no resultant force is acting and the body can keep moving with uniform motion equivalent to a state of rest. Switching off the centripetal force makes the orbiting body spiral away and switching off the centrifugal force makes the orbiting body spiral inwards under its momentum collapsing ultimately into the hub.

    Unfortunately, in gravitational orbits this centrifugal force that prevents collapse of the circular motion is ghostly and not easily discernible.

    Newton seemed to also realize the compelling need for this centrifugal force to balance the effect of gravity and maintain the planets in their circular paths. Seeing no other source, he suggested that the centrifugal force must be arising directly from the motion of the planets themselves. The difficulty and illogicality of this however becomes apparent on three grounds. Firstly, since the centrifugal force must be acting on the body to oppose the centripetal action of gravity which also acts on it, it would appear unusual for the generator of the force, i.e. the orbiting body, to be the subject of the force as well. The idea from Newton's third law is that an object experiences force because it is interacting with some other body or agency and not with itself. Therefore a body cannot give rise to an action force which also serves as a reaction on it. Secondly, a force arising directly from a circularly moving body must be in a tangential direction to the orbit, being a vector like velocity. To balance and be equal and opposite to the centripetal force however, we see that the centrifugal force or its component must act radially outwards on the orbiting body, while the centripetal force acts radially inwards on it. Whatever momentum or force arising from the orbiting body's motion can therefore not be the source of the centrifugal force since it would be acting tangentially at right angles to the orbital radius and cannot have any component in a radial direction to oppose the centripetal force, in the way the centrifugal force would be required to do. Thirdly, a body moving in accordance with Newton's first law of motion as planets are deemed by some to move, while it can be subject to forces whose resultant on it must then be zero, cannot generate force from its own motion or state of rest which would be contributory to the same resultant state of rest or uniform motion. Conclusion: The motion of the planets is not the source of the centrifugal force, whose source must then lie elsewhere.

    3. THE MOON KEEPS FALLING BUT DOES NOT REACH THE GROUND!

    Newton got deserved acclaim by showing that the acceleration with which objects fall under gravity at the earth's surface was related to the centripetal acceleration towards the earth of the moon in orbit, taking the inverse square law into account. In other words, like objects here on earth the moon is also falling under the influence of the same force of gravity.

    Assuming the inverse square law and therefore an acceleration due to gravity on the moon due to the earth to be approximately 0.0027ms-2 instead of the terrestrial value of 9.8 ms-2, we will expect from the most optimistic view of a constant and non-inverse squarely increasing acceleration of 0.0027 ms-2 and using s = ut + ½ gt2 that the moon will fall and reach the ground in about 6 days, if it is indeed falling under the earth's gravity as Newton demonstrated, given that the moon is about 3.8 x 108 metres away and is being acted on by gravity alone and no other force. Unlike the historical apple however, it is long overdue for the moon to fall on our heads, yet something prevents it from doing so. Who or what is this benevolent agent preventing this?

    4. MORE CONTRAVENTIONS TO NEWTON'S SECOND LAW OF MOTION

    Newton's second law of motion states categorically that acceleration due to force A must take place in the direction of that force. This implies that observed deceleration of an accelerating body acted on by a force A must be due to another force B acting in the opposite direction and cannot be due to the continuing action or stoppage of action of force A. Furthermore, Newton's law of gravitation stresses that although gravitational force can vary in magnitude according to the inverse square law, it has a constant direction of attraction which cannot change. Therefore any change in the direction such as observed repulsion between masses must be due to the presence of another force.

    In gravitational orbits, the sun-earth for example, we see the satellite respond to gravity and move closer to the hub as it approaches perihelion. However instead of continuing in that direction, moving closer to the hub, what we see is a kind of repelling action at perihelion. It is as if the direction of gravity has changed. Instead of attraction, we get repulsion.

    To simplify and illustrate, we can use the simple pendulum with a visible bob but an invisible string as an example. We expect things to proceed in an orderly manner and for the pendulum to swing from side to side, which is what happens. However, an observer oblivious of the string because it is invisible must be baffled by the ordinary course of events. This observer knowing about gravity is not surprised by the downswing but he must indeed be alarmed if on reaching its lowest point, instead of continuing downwards in the direction of gravity, he sees the bob swing upwards. He must therefore question, whether gravity can reverse its direction, thereby repelling the bob upwards. As the bob accelerates downwards, increasing in velocity, by what means does it stop accelerating and instead start reducing in velocity and decelerating to gravity? The observer cannot be blamed for suspecting a ghost at work. It must however be an orderly ghost, since the pendulum has a period which remains regular. A less superstitious person would however acknowledge that a force yet to be identified but whose characteristics we can discern from our observations is at work and acts on the pendulum bob in a manner opposite to gravitational action thus preventing what will amount to a contravention of Newton's second law and his proposal of a universally attractive nature for gravity.

    Analogously, reasoning with these mechanical principles we can suspect that a force opposed to gravity is at work in orbits. It is this force that will prevent contraventions to Newton's laws that will occur and explain the mysterious deceleration to gravity at perihelion. The observed deceleration to gravity will represent a contravention of Newton's second law and his law of universal gravitation if no force is deemed responsible. Newton's second law therefore, compels the presence of another force in addition to gravity to serve as one of the return forces operating the orbit as with oscillations of the simple pendulum.

    5. ANGULAR MOMENTUM CONSERVATION DOES NOT WORK AS AN ALIBI

    Although using considerations involving angular momentum conservation, angular velocity can increase when the radius of the orbit reduces, it cannot be used to contravene Newton's second law and convert angular acceleration to angular deceleration without the intervention of a force.

    A further reason for the non-attractiveness of angular momentum conservation as an explanation for the seeming contraventions of Newton's second law and the universally attractive nature of gravity is somewhat of a mathematical nature.

    Angular momentum is given by mr2ω, where m is the mass of the orbiter, r is the radius of orbit and ω is the angular velocity. If the angular momentum is exactly conserved and mass is constant, r2ω will be a constant and ω will be inversely proportional to r2. This will result in disharmony with the inverse square law and Kepler's third law, both of which have the relationship between angular velocity, ω and radius,r as

    ω2 = k /r3, where k is a constant.

    If angular momentum conservation is to be used in explaining the reduction in angular velocity with increasing radius and the sequential increase in angular velocity with reducing radius, then (1) Kepler's third law will be invalid and T2 will be directly proportional to r4 instead of r3, where T is the period of oscillation and (2) the inverse-square law will be invalid and instead will be an inverse-cube law, with gravitational force proportional to 1/r3.

    There is also nothing in the laws of momentum conservation compelling momentum conservation in the direction of deceleration at perihelion as it can be equally conserved in the direction of continuous acceleration and continuous reduction of orbital radius as the orbiter spirals inwards. The angular deceleration seen at perihelion must therefore be the outcome of an orderly force.

    Kepler's first and second laws, imply that what we observe in the motions of planets is governed by law and cannot be attributed to random perturbations. That is, even in the absence of perturbation, Kepler's first and second laws with the alternating increase and decrease in angular velocity and the alternating acceleration and deceleration of planets to the sun's gravity will hold. Conservation of angular momentum features prominently in the quantum scenario, but as we cannot observe directly what is occurring, we refrain from using it for argument.

    6. CONTRAVENTIONS TO THE LAWS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION - ANY FREE LUNCH?

    When the radius of orbit of a satellite reduces, the kinetic energy (K.E.) increases while the potential energy (P.E.) reduces as P.E. is converted to K.E. and the satellite is speeded up.

    However because P.E. decreases by twice as much as the K.E. increases by applications of the known dynamical equations below, there is on the whole, a loss of energy when the orbital radius of a satellite reduces.

    Assuming the zero of potential energy in the gravitational field of the hub is at infinity by convention,

    P.E. of mass in orbit = - GMm/r

    while

    K.E. of satellite in orbit = GMm/2r

    where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the hub, m is mass of the satellite and r is the radius of the orbit.

    Einstein's General relativity similar to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory (for charges) says that acceleration of masses in gravitational orbits leads to loss of energy which is radiated away as gravitational waves.

    The consequence of the above is that when the satellite accelerates to gravity, it should spiral and the gravitational orbit progressively collapses. Contrary to what physics predicts, orbiting bodies alternately gain and lose energy, with energy and potential being lost as perihelion is approached and energy and potential being regained after perihelion and as aphelion is approached. Ordinarily we could explain away what we see in orbits as conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy and back but for inability to account for the energy loss and the force that makes the orbiter rise to the same height in aphelion as in previous orbital cycles.

    The loss of energy and potential due to the effect of gravitational force is comprehensible. What is not accounted for is the source of the energy that makes the orbiter to regain the same potential since the initial energy lost must have radiated away as heat or gravitational waves and is not available for re-conversion to potential energy after perihelion.

    Also generally speaking, inter-conversion between potential energy and kinetic energy requires a force to effect the conversion. The simple pendulum once again is a good example that illustrates this inter-conversion. While gravitational force effects conversion of the potential energy of the bob to kinetic energy as it downswings from one end, a different force will be needed to convert the kinetic energy at its lowest point back to potential energy in the upswing. This is provided by the tension force in the string. In gravitational orbits, the force that converts the maximum kinetic energy at perihelion to the maximum potential energy at aphelion is mysterious but it must exist. If we could identity the force then all would be well and if there is no force, then at least we must identify the source of the energy replenishing the orbit.

    Putting this quantitatively, from equations for P.E. and K.E. above,

    Total energy of a satellite in orbit in joules (J) is given by

    P.E. + K.E. = - GMm/2r

    Using the sun-earth system as an example and given the mass of the sun as 2x1030kg, mass of the earth as 6x1024kg, the earth's perihelion distance as 147x109m and aphelion at 152x109m, we have:

    Total energy of earth in orbit at aphelion (P.E.and K.E.)= - 2.63x1033J

    Total energy of earth in orbit at perihelion (P.E. and K.E.)= - 2.72x1033J

    Therefore, total energy at perihelion is less than at aphelion by 8.94x1031J as expected from orbital dynamics. This is energy lost per cycle between aphelion and perihelion which represents 3.4% of initial energy at aphelion. If no new energy is added, the next aphelion will occur at a distance of 147x109m instead of the previous 152x109m.

    Also although the rate of energy lost is likely to increase more rapidly, if we optimistically assume a steady loss, the orbit is expected to collapse after 29.4 cycles (100/ 3.4 ), that is after about 30 years, but this has not happened billions of years, since the earth formed and started orbiting the sun. Rather what we see is that approximately the same quantity of energy lost is replenished and the aphelion distance is fairly maintained at least for more than thirty cycles. Who is the replenisher and provider of this free lunch?

    7. SOME POSSIBLE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE UNKNOWN AGENT PRESERVING THE ORBIT

    i. Must be invisible

    This is obvious as we cannot visualize the agent responsible for maintaining the orbit. It is certainly not matter, but may be anything else.

    ii. Must possess force that can oppose gravity.

    The agent must provide force capable of opposing centripetal force of gravity and give the balancing centrifugal force. It must therefore tend to oppose gravity and instead promote spreading tendencies for gravitational masses in space.

    iii. Must be able to supply energy

    The agent must be capable of supplying energy to replenish the orbit and prevent collapse. In doing this, it must at a stage in the orbital cycle intervene to prevent collapse by causing deceleration of the orbiter to gravity and increasing its potential.

    iv. Must be omnipresent in time and place

    The agent must always be available to carry out its functions. Since all the orbital cycles are prevented from immediate collapse, the agent must not be a temporary one but present all the time, for all the cycles and as well throughout the visible universe wherever orbits either of stars, planets and galaxies occur.

    8. PARTICIPANT IN MOTION IN DIGITAL OR SIMULATED UNIVERSES

    In Simulated Universes, the space between objects can be represented, e.g. by pixels on the computer screen for example. When we observe objects move on the screen, the pixels representing the object change to the character of those representing space, while the pixels representing space in the direction of motion, change to the character of pixels representing the moving object. In other words, the cooperation of the pixels representing space is required for motion to take place. It is my opinion that something similar happens in a real digital universe, with slight difference.

    This is responsible for my frequent reference to Zeno's Dichotomy Argument and his Arrow paradox, both of which try to show that in some sense motion cannot occur without the fullest cooperation and participation of that which we call space. The Dichotomy paradox suggests motion cannot commence without the cooperation of the first pixel, nor will it end without the cooperation of the last. While the Arrow paradox says something similar, that the Arrow would not even leave the pixels constituting it in the first place unless our concept of motion undergoes a revolutionary review.

    Akinbo

    (This post are mainly excerpts from an old unpublishable paper of mine in response to John Prytz insistence that Space is Not-thing).

      It makes far more sense that the Object universe, what is, is not expanding but merely continuously recycling itself. What is being observed expanding then is the Image reality created from processing of received EM radiation. Radiation that persisted in the environment, after the configurations of objects forming events, from which it scattered, ceased to be.So the Object universe is not all that is seen but something else. The Earth is not a stationary observer of the whole universe expanding away from it but moving as it orbits the sun and with the motion of the solar system and motion of our galaxy which takes it away from the origins of the majority of the sensory data being received. The Earth is the center of the fabricated Image reality visible universe but has no preferential position within the unseen Object universe.

      Experiment

      Space-time in the output image reality is a nothingness because no sensory data was provided by it from which to create an Image reality representing it. However that does not mean that foundational space is just an emptiness. To show this it might be possible to create turbulence in a vacuum, using various kinds of apparatus.For example spinning food processing or blender type blades or something on a much, much smaller scale as the effect may be extremely small. That turbulence should affect the way in which light travels through that space. It maybe that it is very difficult to produce turbulence if it is a super fluid that wants to move as a whole but it could be tried. Surely overcoming inertia the fluid resisting change of trajectory must be moved or altered in some way, which may be detectable using changes to EM passage in proximity as an indicator. Compare before motion and after motion light paths.The turbulence should persist even if for a very short time after the motion has stopped. So disturbance of the light directly can be discounted and any disturbance can be attributed to disturbance of the vacuum filling medium.

        What about a microscopic version of an old style washing machine paddle which mixes things up one way and then the other? That has a chance a churning up something, if its there to be churned.