Article Index


The space according to the definition, penetrates everything; then the space cannot be measured. There is no proof that space exists, or it exists, but it is meaningless because it does nothing, interacts with nothing; the space can penetrate everything. Or does space only make room for planets and stars in nothingness? Is the space a kind of container for matter? Does the space only not penetrate the nothingness? Probably the term space in ancient times was a kind of placeholder, a variable name that still had to be filled with the value. For example, when the space is constantly expanding but at the same time penetrating everything, it cannot be said that the stars also move with the space or the space with the stars. Space according to the known definition, is practically nothing, zero, does not exist for everything in the universe. Planets and stars could just as well exist into nothingness, why the detour? Correctly, we notice the necessity of physical space, our thinking cannot work with nothing. But the definition of space only allows outer space to exist in nothingness, whereupon outer space continues to remain nothing, otherwise the space has no further function or appearance, the general definition of space practically only helps to accept this one idea mentally. But let's say the universe is an empty bubble in an energy cloud. Even today the energy nebulae dissolve from the walls from which matter and further space emerge. Let us assume that every 1 km³ of space contains a grain of sand, and the grain of sand floats into the newly created space. Would the known definition of space still be valid?

Then what is the gigantic emptiness in outer space? That is now certain; the space must not be able to penetrate the matter, perhaps only the cavities of the matter and that also not infinitely deep. The huge universe must be real and tangible as everything on Earth is, otherwise our real 3D environment cannot exist in a fantasy world. The space must be a product, an element or a medium, something we know and we can at least indirectly perceive. I have noticed many things that confirm the existence of space as something, but I admit the fact that at the beginning I perceived space as something like air, not as empty or nothing at all, that influenced and motivated me to look in this direction. Also, the explanation should be as simple as the effect and it should be something fundamental, like the water on Earth. Why? Because the universe contains the most space. The oceans are not only a lot of water, they contain salt, then there are the currents and many lumps that swim in there, and then there are the small beings that can no longer be perceived at ocean size. The universe may also be an ocean but of a different kind, and the space might be the water in the universe.

What speaks against this simple explanation of gravity?

When a ball is dipped into a bathtub filled with water, the water will run over the edge of the bathtub because the ball replaces the water volume. If a planet like the earth is submerged in the medium-space, the earth also replaces space volume but the space does not move and runs somewhere over but the space replaced by the earth compresses around the earth. The space around the earth compressed in this way then "presses" onto the earth, but this is only a simplified explanation.

Add comment

Security code