/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11269667
>You have evidence of oxygen and hydrogen
and nitrogen. All of which constitute what we defined as "Air". We now know that what we defined as "air" actually exists as something that can be felt and used. Why? Because we literally tested it in several scientific experiments. Which we have not done for "space".

>If air is a privation which you all keep alluding to, then it literally "is not something".
But air is not a privation. It doesn't requires something else to define it. It's made of the stuff that literally defines it right now and we empirically showed it actually exists. Its explanation may be lacking, but it lacks nothing. You can now define it however you want, it has a physical nature to be defined.

If your argument is that "air is a privation of oxygen and hydrogen" then you literally don't even understand the point I am trying to make here and I don't think I can explain it to you in anymore detail. This has nothing to do with semantics, it has everything to do with figuring out "what it is". So before we argue over the meaning of words, lets first figure out if what we're assigning a word to even exists or not.
So please, for the love of god, show me or explain to me what space is. What is it made of? What is its mode of actually being something that does something in reality?

You would be best figuring out the answers to these questions if you tested it in a scientific experiment. Is it like air? It does has bits of hydrogen in it. Is it just a "lighter air"? I'm not saying that's what it is, but at least that definition actually gives me something to work with.

>>11269671
As an idea yes.
As something that does something? No.

>>10761843
>The fact that there was a something means that gravity would have enacted on it by definition.

By what definition though? It was never explained proper to begin with.

>>9681296
nigga why you gotta show me this