Nothing As Opposed to Something (Probably a Pointless Blog)

[Man of Popsicle]

Mostly nitrogen actually.

 

[frotaz37]

You guys keep describing qualities of a vacuum...
If it has a measurable amount of pressure (which in this case is 0) then it is something.
If this lack of pressure interacts with something that has pressure, then it can't be nothing.
If you can fill it with matter/energy, then it's not nothing. It's a space, not a void.

Also, gravity is something, is it not? Finding any place in the universe in which there is no gravity is likely impossible.

 

[UltiMario]

A void is NOT a substance. It is a lack of substance. There's no pressure in a void because it has nothing in it. The lack of pressure in the void does not do anything. It does not attract gas like a magnet. All movement into a void is 100% gas' natural properties. The gas wants to be spread evenly throughout its volume, so it does. The void of nothing BECOMES a something ONLY because gases WANT to go there.

If you had a room with solids and liquids floating around in there with 0 pressure and opened a door to a void from it, unless I'm mistaken, things would stay put because there's no gas the move across a volume. Solids and liquids will hold their relative positions and velocities, and prefer that over moving into the void. A Void does not act as a magnet, gas acts as a volume filler.

A void is nothing until you fill it. There is nothing there. It is nothing. This empty space is the definition of a void. It is not anything and it alone cannot act upon another thing, only something else can enact upon it.

Now, for gravity, lets assume you're in the center of my example 20-lightyear void. The nearest object to you is 10 lightyears away. At this distance, the only individual object with enough gravitational pull for you to be attracted to with any noticeable effect would be a supermassive black hole. If those aren't conveniently running around you, I'd say you'd be stuck in that center for damn near eternity, and the gaping void would only grow bigger due to the continuous expansion of the universe. You severely overestimate the size of gravitational fields.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

have we observed any voids? and if so, where is the closest? i know that the closest black whole is like 1600 lightyears away

 

[UltiMario]

List of Voids

Go wild, fella.

 

[frotaz37]

When did I say the gravity was going to have a noticeable effect? I didn't. I simply said it's there. Whether or not it's having a noticeable effect on anything within the space is irrelevant to my point.

Do you not see that the term "20 lightyear void" makes no sense?
You can't have a void with measurable dimensions, because if it has measurable dimensions then it must exist in some form or another.

A true void would be impossible to measure or observe because it would not "exist" in the same way that empty space does.

Also, light is something. If light is observable from one of these supposed "voids" then again, it's not really nothing.

 

[UltiMario]

If there's no supermassive black holes around to snatch you up, there would be no force pulling on you. There would be no gravitational force whatsoever.

A void can be measured because when you take photographs of space there's these nice circles of space where there's nothing there. It's like if I have a picture that was completely white, but had a black spot on it. The white is the stars, the black spot is a void. You measure a void from what's NOT there. No light bounces off it, nothing. When you have these huge areas where there is nothing bouncing back at you to see (and of which isn't a black hole)- that is a void.

A void = empty space. A void = nothing. Therefore, Empty space = nothing. If "nothing" is just when there isn't "something" then empty space is nothing, just how a void is nothing.

You're making some false assumption that a void is a tear in the universe where you like... deflect off or get completely destroyed when approaching. This is a completely wrong assumption.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

u guys both make sense. but either of u could b wrong also... i dont think we know enough about voids or empty space to really accurately assume what's going on there.

 

[frotaz37]

If there's no supermassive black holes around to snatch you up, there would be no force pulling on you. There would be no gravitational force whatsoever.

Gravity doesn't end. Ever. So to say there would be no gravity is completely wrong. Too weak to effect anything, yes. But it's there nonetheless. There is no such thing as zero gravity.

A void can be measured because when you take photographs of space there's these nice circles of space where there's nothing there. It's like if I have a picture that was completely white, but had a black spot on it. The white is the stars, the black spot is a void. You measure a void from what's NOT there. No light bounces off it, nothing. When you have these huge areas where there is nothing bouncing back at you to see (and of which isn't a black hole)- that is a void.

Just because there's no energy producing celestial objects doesn't mean there is nothing.
What happens to the light from the surrounding stars? It's passing through these so called voids at every angle imaginable. So how can it be nothing if there's something in it? Unless, like I said before, you're going to call light nothing.

You're making some false assumption that a void is a tear in the universe where you like... deflect off or get completely destroyed when approaching. This is a completely wrong assumption.

Enough with the straw man, I have no interest in defending points I'm not making -_-

My point is that there is no such thing as a true void within the universe, because there's always something there, whether it be matter, light, radiation, gravity, magnetic forces, or maybe even some other type of energy or force that hasn't been discovered yet/I don't know about.
Even if you managed to find a spot that was completely void of all matter, force, and energy (which I doubt you could), you still have a space with 3 clear dimensions where the laws of physics still apply. Calling it nothing, calling it a void, is completely misleading and way too simple of a description. It's like calling an empty building "nowhere".

It's not nothing. It exists. So it can't be nothing. Not in this universe.

Oh and don't even get me started on cosmic background radiation....

:/ There's no such thing as nothing.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

:/ There's no such thing as nothing.

what is this i dont even... nothing exists. just maybe not in our universe >_>

 

[frotaz37]

what is this i dont even... nothing exists. just maybe not in our universe >_>

lol yeah, that's what I meant.
Whether or not it exists outside of our universe....well, who the **** knows? XD
I doubt the human race will survive long enough to figure out what, if anything, is outside the universe.

That's why we have psychedelic drugs

 

[StealthyGunnar]

lol yeah, that's what I meant.
Whether or not it exists outside of our universe....well, who the **** knows? XD
I doubt the human race will survive long enough to figure out what, if anything, is outside the universe.

That's why we have psychedelic drugs

im pretty sure we just havent noticed "nothing." PARADOX!?!? it's probably so simple lmao

 

[frotaz37]

Oh man I totally forgot to mention time in my last big post.

Even if there is a space completely void of everything, it would not be void of time.

 

[Zankoku]

So the definition of nothing here isn't just the convenient "devoid of matter", but rather "devoid of everything, physical and/or conceptual"?

 

[frotaz37]

Well, I feel like it has to be, otherwise nothing is something.

 

[UltiMario]

Gravity doesn't end. Ever. So to say there would be no gravity is completely wrong. Too weak to effect anything, yes. But it's there nonetheless. There is no such thing as zero gravity.

Since you want to get into the 4th dimension and quantum physics on me, then I'll bring out my own ****. What happens when the cold universe effect happens? There's no stars, galaxies, black holes, nothing left. Most matter has been destroyed, and you're in a void that's for science's sake forever across, and the only thing left in the universe is dark energy. Where's your gravity now? Gravity ends. There might not be a void big enough today to prove it, but it does. In a hypothetical unlimited void, there is no gravity whatsoever. Not that it matters because gravity isn't matter, therefore it can be in a void and it's still a void.

Just because there's no energy producing celestial objects doesn't mean there is nothing.
What happens to the light from the surrounding stars? It's passing through these so called voids at every angle imaginable. So how can it be nothing if there's something in it? Unless, like I said before, you're going to call light nothing.

Light is waves. Waves are not matter. A void is specifically devoid of matter.

My point is that there is no such thing as a true void within the universe, because there's always something there, whether it be matter, light, radiation, gravity, magnetic forces, or maybe even some other type of energy or force that hasn't been discovered yet/I don't know about.

Light, radiation, gravity, and magnetic forces are not even matter. A void merely means that it does not contain matter! Nothing but matter, anti-matter, and dark matter are "something." A void lacks these three and is clearly visible that it does (bar the possibility of dark matter, which I don't believe we've developed technologies to truly detect?).

Nothing other than those 3 things are "something" and a void can contain anything that isn't something. If matter is the only "something" and everything else constitutes as "nothing," then you can have a void anywhere in the universe where there's no matter lying around.

Oh man I totally forgot to mention time in my last big post.

Even if there is a space completely void of everything, it would not be void of time.

Do not even go into the 4th dimension here.

You're now going into **** that a void doesn't even fall into.

So the definition of nothing here isn't just the convenient "devoid of matter", but rather "devoid of everything, physical and/or conceptual"?

Even though that's a completely wrong definition to use for a void, I guess if you REALLY WANT TO USE IT, you could just look at the exterior of the universe. Our universe is forever growing, so what is it growing into? A void. There is a void beyond our universe, in which all dimensions are still expanding into. Places with no space, no time. Nothing. These are not in, but around our universe.



Also, I'd like to note that there MUST be nothing in the universe. The Big Bang, assuming the theory is true, requires nothing to exist. The Big Bang had to explode, and the universe had to expand faster than the speed of light or else the model does not work. Well, as we all know, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Now, take that again in a more literal sense. "Nothing" can travel faster than the speed of light. The boundaries and borders of our universe moved far out and expanded faster than the speed of light, only because it was nothing. If nothing was something, it could NOT travel faster than the speed of light, nothing can.

 

[frotaz37]

You really can't seem to understand that I am not trying to argue that the scientific definition of "void" is not what it is. I'm saying that the definition is flawed.

Nothing other than those 3 things are "something" and a void can contain anything that isn't something. If matter is the only "something" and everything else constitutes as "nothing," then you can have a void anywhere in the universe where there's no matter lying around.

Your definitions of nothing and something are clearly flawed. If what you're saying is accurate, then:

Light is nothing.
Gravity is nothing.
Radiation is nothing.
Time is nothing.
Dimensions are nothing.

I can't even begin to describe how wrong this is because it's so god damn obviously wrong. Hey, matter is converted energy. It's like saying hydrogen and oxygen are nothing, but water is something. Makes absolutely no sense.

Also, I'd like to note that there MUST be nothing in the universe. The Big Bang, assuming the theory is true, requires nothing to exist. The Big Bang had to explode, and the universe had to expand faster than the speed of light or else the model does not work. Well, as we all know, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Now, take that again in a more literal sense. "Nothing" can travel faster than the speed of light. The boundaries and borders of our universe moved far out and expanded faster than the speed of light, only because it was nothing. If nothing was something, it could NOT travel faster than the speed of light, nothing can.

Except for gravity, dimensions, time...tachyons maybe? But those are nothing too, right?
-_-

Your entire argument is based on your own idea of "nothing". You're disguising it as science by claiming it's synonymous with "void" but at the end of the day, we aren't talking about "nothing" from a purely scientific dictionary definition of void standpoint. The discussion is about whether "nothing" is "something", not about whether "nothing" is defined as "lack of matter".

We get it, you think matter is what makes something "something". But it has nothing to do with anything I'm saying. It's a counterpoint to a point I'm not even making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Knock it off, dude

Oh, by the way,

Since you want to get into the 4th dimension and quantum physics on me, then I'll bring out my own ****. What happens when the cold universe effect happens? There's no stars, galaxies, black holes, nothing left. Most matter has been destroyed, and you're in a void that's for science's sake forever across, and the only thing left in the universe is dark energy. Where's your gravity now? Gravity ends. There might not be a void big enough today to prove it, but it does. In a hypothetical unlimited void, there is no gravity whatsoever.

That's just you being a **** for no reason except to take away attention from the fact that you're saying things that are completely wrong.
When you say that there's no gravitational force in a void whatsoever, and then I prove you wrong, why do you have to do this?

Why not just say "Yeah, you're right about that, but I'm talking about the scientific definition of void which can include gravity and still be a void"?
Why so much ego?
I'm not claiming to be an expert on any of this. I've never taken a physics class, nor have I spent much time learning about this stuff. Most of it is gibberish to me.

So really, what are you trying to prove? THAT YOU KNOW STUFF?

WAY TO BRO, YOU WIN A PSYDUCK

 

[UltiMario]

TL;DR me raging at 5AM because I'm bored

Your definitions of nothing and something are clearly flawed. If what you're saying is accurate, then:

Light is nothing.
Gravity is nothing.
Radiation is nothing.
Time is nothing.
Dimensions are nothing.

I can't even begin to describe how wrong this is because it's so god damn obviously wrong. Hey, matter is converted energy. It's like saying hydrogen and oxygen are nothing, but water is something. Makes absolutely no sense.

At least to how I see it, "nothing" = does not have mass.

It's the same reason why you can't turn on a flash light and hook it up to the back of your car and drive at the speed of light. Light might be firing out of the back of your car at the speed of... well... light... and then flashing against some object, but they're waves. If Light was something then we wouldn't need gasoline, we'd just all tie flashlights to our cars and fly to mars in a couple of seconds.

Except for gravity, dimensions, time...tachyons maybe? But those are nothing too, right?
-_-

You even said yourself that you don't know about voids that could exist beyond out universe or in a different universe or something like that. Even by your definition of nothing (I think?) where nothing is something, but a true nothing would lack ANY attributes of the universe.... the big bang's nothing still fits. The Nothing isn't the former nothing, but the latter nothing. Nothing can move at speeds that transcends, by definition of the big bang theory, the four forces of the universe. So are you arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me or do you think your own definition of true nothing is wrong now?

Your entire argument is based on your own idea of "nothing". You're disguising it as science by claiming it's synonymous with "void" but at the end of the day, we aren't talking about "nothing" from a purely scientific dictionary definition of void standpoint. The discussion is about whether "nothing" is "something", not about whether "nothing" is defined as "lack of matter".

There are ways to approach the concept of nothing other than scientifically? Gee, I guess I'll work on 0 without using math, then.

I guess you could go to map-making sort of ideals and say nothing is something because you can tack a "you are here!" sign on a huge void of nothing on some spacial map. That's just pointing out that areas of nothing can be located, not that they're actually something though.



Also with that last post you made

and this last post I typed

I have realized

That at this point, NEITHER of us are making a point anymore.


tl;dr #2- I use the scientific/traditional definition for nothing, where nothing is a void and nothing is indeed not something. You use a more stingy one there nothing is always something unless it's like some dimensionally transient **** or something that doesn't exist within this universe. As such our definitions clash and we'll never agree.

Have a nice rest of your life.

 

[Teran]

Guys stop being so belligerent.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

again, the debate is whether is "nothing" "something" or not. "nothing" exists. can we stipulate to that?

 

[frotaz37]

I wonder if it's my sig that makes people hate me.
People always tell me I need to change the way I argue or else people are gonna rage.
So then I do, and argue in the most factual, calm mannered way possible.
And people still rage

It's the same reason why you can't turn on a flash light and hook it up to the back of your car and drive at the speed of light. Light might be firing out of the back of your car at the speed of... well... light... and then flashing against some object, but they're waves. If Light was something then we wouldn't need gasoline, we'd just all tie flashlights to our cars and fly to mars in a couple of seconds.

If the opposite of something is nothing, then you are saying that light is nothing, and particles are nothing. This is simply inaccurate.

There are ways to approach the concept of nothing other than scientifically? Gee, I guess I'll work on 0 without using math, then.

Nothing is a concept that is discussed in philosophy, language, logic, and physics. There are many ways to approach the concept of nothing.

I guess you could go to map-making sort of ideals and say nothing is something because you can tack a "you are here!" sign on a huge void of nothing on some spacial map. That's just pointing out that areas of nothing can be located, not that they're actually something though.

The sign would still be warping space-time, creating a gravitational field and displacing/absorbing energy that is passing through it.

I use the scientific/traditional definition for nothing, where nothing is a void and nothing is indeed not something. You use a more stingy one there nothing is always something unless it's like some dimensionally transient **** or something that doesn't exist within this universe. As such our definitions clash and we'll never agree.

There doesn't have to be an agreement on terminology in a conceptual discussion, especially when I clearly explain what I'm referring to when I use the word "nothing". You seem to be stuck on the fact that my definition of nothing is scientifically incorrect... which is completely irrelevant to the conversation.

I definitely have a point...if everything observable and measurable within the universe is to be considered something, then voids (the scientific variety) are not truly empty. They are still filled with something, therefore making nothing (my definition) most likely impossible to find within the universe.

Simple.

The universe is a giant something.
What's sort of terrifying is...if the universe really is located in a void of non-existence....well.
The only way this seems possible is if the universe is located in some sort of 4 dimensional mass storage device, like some sort of hard drive.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

ok so lets say scientists observe a "void." there is NOTHING there, it's just empty alright. just because it is yea wide, there must be something there? im pretty sure even nothingness can be measured.