Every experiment has to show evidence for space-as-a-thing.

But the big http://example.com no-no is that space-as-a-thing violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. If the standard model of cosmology is correct, the Big Bang created space-as-a-thing from scratch; from absolutely nothing. Though postulated as a given, no one has to come up with an adequate or credible how that happened or even could happen. Worse, that process is ongoing. Recall that the late Sir Fred Hoyle was bucketed for advocating the Steady State Universe which required the of matter from – something like atom of hydrogen per cubic mile per or some such set up of magnitude figure to that. Hoyle could give no mechanism. Of course his retort was that the alternate Big Bang event created everything from nothing all once, again without mechanism given, but that was apparently okay his creation from wasn’t. Well creation from nothing is NOT authorise in any cosmology.

I really have to admire the audacity of some cosmologists in their popular writings. In ace chapter they will chemical phenomenon the First Law of Thermodynamics about how (hence matter) cannot live created or destroyed only changed from form into another. In other words, there is no such thing a cosmic free lunch; you can’t create from nothing. Yet another chapter they bequeath note how the density of the is unchanging or it is a constant, even though the Universe is expanding. That contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics. Since space-as-a-thing translates into the of dark energy and dark energy translates binding into the creation of space-as-a-thing (each creating of the other come out of absolutely nothing) that’s a free cosmic lunch. They – cosmologists – contradict themselves. If they don’t realize they’ve it, they don’t to be in academia. If they realize this contradiction without commenting same, they deserve to be kicked out of academia.

So if you are advocating space-as-a-thing then you are advocating the creation of from nothing therefore advocating that the First Law of Thermodynamics is negated even as I write and as you read. Good luck with that premise.

Motion, and variations thereof (acceleration, deceleration, momentum, rotation, etc.) is entirely independent of space-as-a-thing or even of space-as-a-not-thing. Recall that early 20th Century “New York Times” editorial that rocket travel was bunk on the that in space was nothing for the rocket’s exhaust to move against. That editorial was retracted on the of the Moon landing! So space travel via rocket-ship is possible even off if space is NOT a thing since relevant forces operate of the existence non-existence of space. If one persists in to link motion and space-as-a-thing, find an that involves motion that also has space-as-a-thing one of the parameters.

Twenty Questions (give or take): If space-is-a-thing…

no-no is that space-as-a-thing violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. If the standard model of cosmology is correct, the Big Bang created space-as-a-thing from scratch; from absolutely nothing. Though postulated as a given, no one has to come up with an adequate or credible how that happened or even could happen. Worse, that process is ongoing. Recall that the late Sir Fred Hoyle was bucketed for advocating the Steady State Universe which required the of matter from – something like atom of hydrogen per cubic mile per or some such set up of magnitude figure to that. Hoyle could give no mechanism. Of course his retort was that the alternate Big Bang event created everything from nothing all once, again without mechanism given, but that was apparently okay his creation from wasn’t. Well creation from nothing is NOT authorise in any cosmology.

I really have to admire the audacity of some cosmologists in their popular writings. In ace chapter they will chemical phenomenon the First Law of Thermodynamics about how (hence matter) cannot live created or destroyed only changed from form into another. In other words, there is no such thing a cosmic free lunch; you can’t create from nothing. Yet another chapter they bequeath note how the density of the is unchanging or it is a constant, even though the Universe is expanding. That contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics. Since space-as-a-thing translates into the of dark energy and dark energy translates binding into the creation of space-as-a-thing (each creating of the other come out of absolutely nothing) that’s a free cosmic lunch. They – cosmologists – contradict themselves. If they don’t realize they’ve it, they don’t to be in academia. If they realize this contradiction without commenting same, they deserve to be kicked out of academia.

So if you are advocating space-as-a-thing then you are advocating the creation of from nothing therefore advocating that the First Law of Thermodynamics is negated even as I write and as you read. Good luck with that premise.

Motion, and variations thereof (acceleration, deceleration, momentum, rotation, etc.) is entirely independent of space-as-a-thing or even of space-as-a-not-thing. Recall that early 20th Century “New York Times” editorial that rocket travel was bunk on the that in space was nothing for the rocket’s exhaust to move against. That editorial was retracted on the of the Moon landing! So space travel via rocket-ship is possible even off if space is NOT a thing since relevant forces operate of the existence non-existence of space. If one persists in to link motion and space-as-a-thing, find an that involves motion that also has space-as-a-thing one of the parameters.

Twenty Questions (give or take): If space-is-a-thing…

Every experiment has to show evidence for space-as-a-thing.

But the big http://example.com no-no is that space-as-a-thing violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. If the standard model of cosmology is correct, the Big Bang created space-as-a-thing from scratch; from absolutely nothing. Though postulated as a given, no one has to come up with an adequate or credible how that happened or even could happen. Worse, that process is ongoing. Recall that the late Sir Fred Hoyle was bucketed for advocating the Steady State Universe which required the of matter from – something like atom of hydrogen per cubic mile per or some such set up of magnitude figure to that. Hoyle could give no mechanism. Of course his retort was that the alternate Big Bang event created everything from nothing all once, again without mechanism given, but that was apparently okay his creation from wasn’t. Well creation from nothing is NOT authorise in any cosmology.

I really have to admire the audacity of some cosmologists in their popular writings. In ace chapter they will chemical phenomenon the First Law of Thermodynamics about how (hence matter) cannot live created or destroyed only changed from form into another. In other words, there is no such thing a cosmic free lunch; you can’t create from nothing. Yet another chapter they bequeath note how the density of the is unchanging or it is a constant, even though the Universe is expanding. That contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics. Since space-as-a-thing translates into the of dark energy and dark energy translates binding into the creation of space-as-a-thing (each creating of the other come out of absolutely nothing) that’s a free cosmic lunch. They – cosmologists – contradict themselves. If they don’t realize they’ve it, they don’t to be in academia. If they realize this contradiction without commenting same, they deserve to be kicked out of academia.

So if you are advocating space-as-a-thing then you are advocating the creation of from nothing therefore advocating that the First Law of Thermodynamics is negated even as I write and as you read. Good luck with that premise.

Motion, and variations thereof (acceleration, deceleration, momentum, rotation, etc.) is entirely independent of space-as-a-thing or even of space-as-a-not-thing. Recall that early 20th Century “New York Times” editorial that rocket travel was bunk on the that in space was nothing for the rocket’s exhaust to move against. That editorial was retracted on the of the Moon landing! So space travel via rocket-ship is possible even off if space is NOT a thing since relevant forces operate of the existence non-existence of space. If one persists in to link motion and space-as-a-thing, find an that involves motion that also has space-as-a-thing one of the parameters.

Twenty Questions (give or take): If space-is-a-thing…

no-no is that space-as-a-thing violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. If the standard model of cosmology is correct, the Big Bang created space-as-a-thing from scratch; from absolutely nothing. Though postulated as a given, no one has to come up with an adequate or credible how that happened or even could happen. Worse, that process is ongoing. Recall that the late Sir Fred Hoyle was bucketed for advocating the Steady State Universe which required the of matter from – something like atom of hydrogen per cubic mile per or some such set up of magnitude figure to that. Hoyle could give no mechanism. Of course his retort was that the alternate Big Bang event created everything from nothing all once, again without mechanism given, but that was apparently okay his creation from wasn’t. Well creation from nothing is NOT authorise in any cosmology.

I really have to admire the audacity of some cosmologists in their popular writings. In ace chapter they will chemical phenomenon the First Law of Thermodynamics about how (hence matter) cannot live created or destroyed only changed from form into another. In other words, there is no such thing a cosmic free lunch; you can’t create from nothing. Yet another chapter they bequeath note how the density of the is unchanging or it is a constant, even though the Universe is expanding. That contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics. Since space-as-a-thing translates into the of dark energy and dark energy translates binding into the creation of space-as-a-thing (each creating of the other come out of absolutely nothing) that’s a free cosmic lunch. They – cosmologists – contradict themselves. If they don’t realize they’ve it, they don’t to be in academia. If they realize this contradiction without commenting same, they deserve to be kicked out of academia.

So if you are advocating space-as-a-thing then you are advocating the creation of from nothing therefore advocating that the First Law of Thermodynamics is negated even as I write and as you read. Good luck with that premise.

Motion, and variations thereof (acceleration, deceleration, momentum, rotation, etc.) is entirely independent of space-as-a-thing or even of space-as-a-not-thing. Recall that early 20th Century “New York Times” editorial that rocket travel was bunk on the that in space was nothing for the rocket’s exhaust to move against. That editorial was retracted on the of the Moon landing! So space travel via rocket-ship is possible even off if space is NOT a thing since relevant forces operate of the existence non-existence of space. If one persists in to link motion and space-as-a-thing, find an that involves motion that also has space-as-a-thing one of the parameters.

Twenty Questions (give or take): If space-is-a-thing…