JohnLesser

Mostly the ''action'' is observed before the maths is created, for generations we have done it this way, maths describing the ''actions''. Why do you or anyone else think that any maths is valued without the observation of ''action''? It is not hard to understand by my interpretation using a 4 dimensional 0 point energy matrix.

I do not know what you deem to be evidence but I am sure words or somebody giving a lecture is not evidence. Everything provided this far is not evidence. In the video he says,''our theories are so beautiful they must be correct'', huh......

You have observation of this pair process?

ok, so you are saying there is a level of permittivity and permeability of free space, this being caused by spacial fields? Don't things move relative to each other and relative to space? I do not believe there is any evidence of these fields let alone these fields being actual space? I believe you are presenting psuedo to be factual unless you can provide evidence of these fields?

If you can measure them, why refer to them as virtual? You say a void empty of everything does not exist, what then do you propose is left if we could remove all the matter from a volume of space? Take note I said all the matter.

I do not believe you have accounted for the different playing styles and a multitude of different variances.

Virtual means they do not exist physically, also you can not change definition to suit or it leads to global confusion. The definition of a void is space completely empty of everything, putting things in makes it no longer a void. This is a science forum! may I suggest you get your definitions correct

I have still not heard anything mentioned that suggests space is made of anything? Fields occupy space ? I do not understand that but recognise 0. Of course it can never be empty space if people keep putting things back into it.

It looks like a zero value to me?

We can measure a length of space but how does that imply space itself is made of anything physical? We can easily examine space as it ''surrounds'' all of us. If we was to remove all the matter from a small volume of that space then certainty all that is left is a volume of empty space , made of nothing? Notions such as a Higg's field being ''occupants'' of space . Space in my opinion is not relative to anything because realistically we do not observe any change of the state of space. We observe change in the state of matter from one increment of time to the next. Of course with time there is many factors to consider such as relativistic effects and time dilation, but all the states of matter have some form of physicality unlike our observations of just plain old space. I would assume that things age and all that is change, is relative to space and only comparable too and because of space?

I could not give a citation. Space itself ''beyond'' matter has no physicality and I do not believe it has been proven otherwise, so therefore until any such proof, it remains made of nothing. Saying otherwise is at best psuedo.

What I find interesting is that light exerts a force, we have already mentioned in this thread space is made of ''nothing''. Space offers no permeability or permitivity to have any opposing force to light. I assume there is nothing of space that could compress light to be a wave. Why do we not view light passing through space in being decompressed and a linearity until opposite force/obstruction is in the way?

ok, The invisible light between the distant stars, is that light a longer or a shorter wave-length than 700nm?

You say the same less than 400nm, I would of thought that would be more visible nearing to a black body?

Interesting , so the wave-length of invisible light is longer than 700nm? true

yes we only see visible light in the range of 400nm-700nm wave-length.

This narrow beam of light having no wavelength? Yes i have seen the moon but i am not sure how you have answered my question. My interpretation of the information received in this thread is that you have practically told me that we see things that ''glow'' in the dark.huh?

Fascinating, so in space we observe matter that is illuminated in the dark?

A common misconception, if the space is defined to be empty, then why are you ''filling'' the space with matter? We have definition to avoid confusion, a void is empty of all matter. You are the one placing things in a void, may i suggest you check the definition of a void.

Are you trying to say that if there was no objects reflecting light we would observe relatively, it to be dark,? as in earlier discussion between the stars.

I assure you a void and a perfect vacuum are valid concepts. The observer would not observe anything but experience ''darkness'' in a perfect vacuum or a void because of the obvious that there is no light. However the observer can determine there is still space by having the ability to move limbs I am sure empty space ''exists'' but the problem would be how to empty that space.

''Empty'' space can be viewed two different ways, a perfect vacuum or a void. If we could remove EVERYTHING from space leaving an empty volume with no physicality in it, then we must presume that empty space exists.

What do you mean by in a way the darkness is whats already there?

Hello you give me a warning point for putting mainstream, Gravity is M1 attracted to M2 and M2 is attracted to M1 and the distance between M1 and M2 contracts like something falling to the ground. Both M1 and M2 ''pull'' each other. I think by ambiguity you misunderstood my post, Can you please remove the unjust warning point? Pull to me means only one body is being forced to move.