The Existence of Space

Thank you quantummechanics97 for inviting me to debate this interesting subject. I enjoy science debates and this topic in particular is an interesting one. Clearing Up Round 1 Muddy WatersFirst I would like to provide a definition of “space” since my opponent did not give one in his opening round. Space according to Universe Today [1]: a) Everything in the universe beyond the top of the Earth’s atmosphere – the Moon, where the GPS satellites orbit, Mars, other stars, the Milky Way, black holes, and distant quasars. (b) Space also means what’s between planets, moons, stars, etc – it’s the near-vacuum otherwise known as the interplanetary medium, the interstellar medium, the inter-galactic medium, the intra-cluster medium, etc; in other words, it’s very low density gas or plasma. In definition (a) we can see that “space” includes everything. If you were to observe the Universe in its entirety Earth would be included in this definition. So Con’s second premise that states space is nothing is incorrect…it is everything. However to keep this debate on the definition I think my opponent is more inclined too we shall use definition (b). In definition (b) we can see that space is the distance between objects (specifically in terms of celestial bodies). A problem occurs if we refer to this definition of space in comparison with Con’s second premise. The distance between objects is not nonexistence, or nothingness, but is the existence of a quantification of a distance between two objects. Lets use for example if I say I’m 10 feet from my front door. Con says the 10 feet does not exist because the distance itself is not a palpable existence (taken from the resolution of “space doesn’t exist” in Con’s opening statements). Here the problem is a misunderstanding of the word space. Space is a measure of distance between two objects, and therefore is the existence of 10 feet between me and the door. Secondly in terms of empty space, or the space between planets, galaxies, or any other celestial object, the problem is in part the same. The space here is still a measurement of distance between two objects and therefore exists in the form of a quantified separation. Confusing Space With NothingnessFrom what I can tell Con is confusing space with nothingness. Nothingness is absolutely nothing. It is not existence in that it is the absence of all existence. It has no properties and nothing to quantify. It is purely nothing. Space on the other hand does have properties, and is used to quantify distance. Space between celestial bodies has properties of a vacuum and gravitational attraction. This is even giving allowance for the idea that there is nothing in between celestial bodies except space even though there is space dust, gas, and radiation waves flowing through it constantly. So space has properties that can be measured in terms of gravity and vacuum. Nothingness has no properties. So space obviously exists. When you look up at the moon and see it 384,403 kilometers away from you, and not smashed into the atoms that make up yourself, you can witness space. In terms of the properties between us and the moon you can measure the gravitational pull to either the moon or Earth depending on where in the space you measure it from. Nothingness has no properties and quantifies nothing. Also to say “nothing” in itself exists is an illogical statement. Nothingness is not something that could be, but rather it is the absence of anything. Breaking Down Con’s ArgumentPremise 1: “Everything that is is in something.”- Aside from the bad grammar here this is also an incomplete sentence. It is hard to decipher what Con is even saying here. I’m assuming he is trying to say that everything that exists is existing in something. If this is what he is trying to say then to say that space doesn’t exist is absurd in that it exists in the Universe.Premise 2: “Space is nothing.”- As stated before space is not nothingness. Also I proved how this is wrong simply by providing the definition of space.Conclusion: “Therefore, space does not exist.”- Since premise one is false, and premise two is false, the conclusion is absolutely false.For now I will turn this debate back to you Con. I have rebutted everything that I could draw from your opening round. Good luck![1] What is Space? By Jean Tate on February 26, 2010 http://www.universetoday.com...