Vacism

[Anonymous No.14600828]

Why should we believe in the absurd notion of a "vacuum" or "vacuum of space"? It's a nonsensical idea. Vacuum is literally the Latin word for nothing — vacua — void.

A true vacuum should just collapse in on itself. A true vacuum should take 0s to traverse. A true vacuum shouldn't exist; it's practically a synonym for 'non-existence'.

There's the old Latin saying, Natura Abhorret Vacuum: nature abhors a vacuum. That's good logic, good "natural philosophy". So why did the natural philosophers (i.e. the scientists) abandon this sound principle and establish the absurd physical structure of a vacuum, a literal nothing that somehow has spacial dimensions?

It's my understanding that up to the early 20th century, physicists taught that the universe was permeated by a base energetic field called the "luminiferous (light-carrying) aether". It's this aetheric medium that exists everywhere in physical space, and is really what constitutes physical space on the the lowest level. It is this field/medium that carries light: a light wave is a ripple in the aether the same way am ocean wave is a ripple in the water.

Is dark matter / dark energy the aether under another name? Are scientists beginning to suspect the "vacuum of space" isn't si vacuous after all ?

Why did physicists get rid of a sensible notion of an aether, and replace it with the wacky surrealist concept of a vacuum?

[Anonymous No.14600830]

>>14600828
Your entire theory is just assumptions without proof, kind of like quantum retards assuming everything has to be tied to some magic particle

[Anonymous No.14600831]

>>14600828
>A true vacuum should just collapse
why?

[Anonymous No.14600832]

Vacuum isn't empty. According to QFT it has a minimum level of energy and there's constantly particles popping up into existence and vanishing again.

[Anonymous No.14600835]

>>14600830
My theory isn't a theory, it's an anti-theory. I don't care about the aether, that was just a counter-example. What I want to know is theoretical justification for this bizarre vacuum hypothesis.

>>14600831
Because there's no physical reason why it should maintain any particular structure. A vacuum of 2 millimeters is the same as a vacuum of 2 trillion miles. They are both nothing, empty.

I could kind of accept the theoretical idea of an infinitesimally small vacuum or an infinitely large vacuum, but why a vacuum should have a defined volume of x miles^3 makes no sense to me.

[Anonymous No.14600838]

>>14600835
Define empty, show me a place in the universe where the universe doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.14600842]

>>14600832
Does QFT believe that the "vacuum" is really a continuous field in which globules/particles appear or congregate, or that the vacuum is a literal nothing/void in which the particles just magically pop into existence? If the former, it's something like the aether. If the latter, it's just like the vacuum of space but on the micro-level.

See, I could understand the idea of an pervasive energy field that sometimes has high energy points we can measure as "particles", but the idea of a literal void in which particles sprout ex nihilo — out of nothing — sounds like sorcery.

[Anonymous No.14600846]

>>14600838
>show me a place in the universe where the universe doesn't exist
You're using the word 'universe' in two different ways here.

1st. The global category of the "universe", all things combined.

2nd. You're appealing to some kind of underlying substrate that makes up the universe. But that's precisely my question — is there an underlying something, a universal substrate, or is the global "universe" a series of particular 'somethings' somehow suspended in nothing, a vacuum ?

[Anonymous No.14600858]

>>14600828
As I understand it, and I could be wrong, the use of the word vacuum in astronomy is simply a convention. When speaking about the vacuum of space no one is suggesting its a true vacuum ( nonexistence) in the sense that you are using , but rather its those areas which are devoid of considerable matter. Its well understood that the "vacuum" of space contains not only fields, virtual particles, photons and the odd stray hydrogen atom, but also that a true vacuum can not physically exist in any spatial sense.
The VoS between the earth and the moon will be littered with considerable matter and energy. In between stars this will be considerably less, and again even less between galaxies, but it will never be totally empty of any matter or energy.
If this is correct then the "vacuum of space" is just another moniker for the aether.

[Anonymous No.14600860]

>>14600846
>is there an underlying something
Yes, it's called space and it's made of nothing

[Anonymous No.14600865]

>>14600860
So when we speak of space expanding, do you mean:

1. that the "things in space" (stars, planets, etc.) are moving further apart in a space of fixed dimensions?

2. the literal dimensions of space themselves are expanding?

If 1., what set the initial dimensions of space. Are they eternal?
If 2., how can something "made of nothing" expand?

[Anonymous No.14600869]

>>14600865
Space isn't expanding, it is infinite and homogenous in all directions and doesn't interact with matter, because it's made of nothing.

[Anonymous No.14600885]

>>14600828
>Is dark matter / dark energy the aether under another name?
yesn't

they're just names given to phenomena that have been observed but aren't yet understood well

you know, because it's surprisingly a lot easier to talk about those phenomena if you name them

>Why did physicists get rid of a sensible notion of an aether, and replace it with the wacky surrealist concept of a vacuum?
because they're not the same theories, and luminiferous aether as it was conceived was proven not to exist a long time ago

[Anonymous No.14600887]

>>14600865
it's 2., the scale of the universe is growing

>If 2., how can something "made of nothing" expand?
it's not "made of nothing", if it were then it wouldn't exist

since space clearly does exist, it must be made of something, whether that's a fundamental property or an emergent interaction between something else is irrelevant, it still exists

[Anonymous No.14600888]

>>14600887
Wrong, matter exists, space is the lack of matter

[Anonymous No.14600889]

>>14600888
that's silly, if there was no space where the matter was, then the matter couldn't be anywhere

space still exists in the same place as matter

[Anonymous No.14600892]

>>14600889
No it doesn't because that area of space is occupied by matter dumbass

[Anonymous No.14600897]

>>14600892
yes it it, in fact you just said it's an area of space, not an area devoid of space, you silly goose

[Anonymous No.14600898]

>>14600897
Space is an area devoid of matter, there is no area devoid of space, space is all there is, there is no outside boundary of the universe, it's an infinite nothingness that's just a playground for energy

[Anonymous No.14600900]

>>14600898
no, space is just space, whether there's matter in it or not

[Anonymous No.14600905]

>>14600900
You are mentally retarded anon, there is no hope for you, I'm sorry

[Anonymous No.14600909]

>>14600905
and you don't know what space is :)

[Anonymous No.14600916]

>>14600909
An area devoid of matter, but I guess english isn't your first language

[Anonymous No.14600917]

>>14600916
nope, space it's just space, regardless of matter

[Anonymous No.14600926]

>>14600917
Prove it then, retard, I'm interested in hearing what kind of low iq shit you can come up with

[Anonymous No.14600933]

>>14600835
>Because there's no physical reason why it should maintain any particular structure.
What structure does it maintain? It's empty.

>A vacuum of 2 millimeters is the same as a vacuum of 2 trillion miles.
No, one is 2 mm and the other is 2 trillion miles.

>why a vacuum should have a defined volume of x miles^3 makes no sense to me.
Why should it not? You're just making an argument from incredulity.

[Anonymous No.14600935]

>>14600865
>how can something "made of nothing" expand?
Categorical error. Only things in space are made of something, and space is not in space.

[Anonymous No.14600939]

>>14600926
Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

[Anonymous No.14600949]

>>14600828
Unfortunately your entire viewpoint is just exclamation sentences saying : 'this is sound', 'this logical', 'this is not natural' without deeply explaining why.
I fail to see the unnatural in your anti-thesis and seems you are bounded by your own definition of what is natural and what is not, and you are using it as a basis for all your subsequent arguments.
The Latin Maxime was through natural observation in a confined region of space called planet earth, you seem to be bounded by the same thing and you are trying to establish your logic upon local observation and extrapolate everywhere else in the universe.
Anyway, I always failed to see since ever why concepts like 'void' and 'infinity' were unnatural and counter-intuitive to people.

[Anonymous No.14600960]

>>14600939
I said prove it not link a wikipedia article of a faulty half-complete theory dumbass

[Anonymous No.14600963]

>>14600960
>I said prove it
Proof is in the link. Empirical proof which is the best you're going to get. So don't whine at me.

>faulty half-complete theory
Proof?

[Anonymous No.14600977]

>>14600963
Relativity has nothing to do with space, but the propagation of matter, space is separate from matter, the lack of matter, to be more specific, at least read the shit you post

[Anonymous No.14600986]

>>14600977
>Relativity has nothing to do with space
>General relativity generalizes special relativity and refines Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time or four-dimensional spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present.

>the lack of matter
No, that's vacuum. Space is part of the manifold which contains events.

[Anonymous No.14600993]

>>14600986
>quoting 200 year old incomplete theories as your proof
Fucking lmao
Gravity is a property of matter and has nothing to do with space, try again, also none of this proves what you said, that space exists when it is occupied by not-space, still waiting on that proof ESL boy, but I guess it's never coming because all you can do is quote shit that other people said which you misinterpret completely

[Anonymous No.14601005]

>>14600993
>incomplete theories
OK, and?

>Gravity is a property of matter and has nothing to do with space
Wrong. See >>14600939

Where's your evidence? Oh right, you have none. Dumb schizo.

>space exists when it is occupied by not-space
Where did I say that? You can't even read.

[Anonymous No.14601013]

>>14600993
Why did you lie about relativity having nothing to do with space?

[Anonymous No.14601016]

>>14601005
>Where's your evidence?
Evidence?
The fact that we've only observed gravity where there is matter present?
>Where did I say that?
>>14600898
>>14600900
>>14600926
Please stop posting dumbass

[Anonymous No.14601054]

>>14601013
Relativity only applies to the subjective observation of matter, space is not matter

[Anonymous No.14601069]

>>14600828
Try to look backwards into your mind. You should find a true vacuum. I wonder if there are any implications of that.

[Anonymous No.14601091]

True. If there would be a real vacuum, say between sun and earth, it would suck particles from either one and voilà it wouldnt be a vacuum anymore

[Anonymous No.14601093]

[math]P=P_0 e^{-mgh/kT}[/math]

There is no vacuum. exp is never zero

[Anonymous No.14601187]

>>14601091
Only if it's a Dyson. I've got a Henry Hoover and that thing couldn't suck up a single atom.

[Anonymous No.14601190]

>>14600828
Why do aetherfaggots go back to original theory always? Just take what you can and fucking go. Stop mixing in light into the fucking ather. It takes away all your credibility

[Anonymous No.14601222]

>>14600933
>2 mm and the other is 2 trillion miles
how do you differentiate between them?
>well you measure them silly
if there's truly nothing in the vacuum, what are you measure?
>well the vacuum itself silly
ok lets say you have a vacuum of 1m3. whats at the boundary of the vacuum, if there's nothing to differentiate it from whats outside the vacuum

tldr: youre a fucking retard

op: i agree, you cant have a finite vacuum with non zero volume

[Anonymous No.14601257]

>>14601016
>Evidence?
Yes, where's your evidence?

>The fact that we've only observed gravity where there is matter present?
??? We observe gravity in a vacuum too. Light curves as it passes through a vacuum.

>>14600898 #
>>14600900 #
>>14600926 #
Not me, try again retard.

[Anonymous No.14601261]

>>14601054
>Relativity only applies to the subjective observation of matter
No, relativity applies to light, the curvature of space and time, gravity waves, etc. Why did you lie about relativity having nothing to do with space?

[Anonymous No.14601263]

>>14601091
Never heard of gravity?

[Anonymous No.14601268]

>>14601016
So you admit gravity is a property of space? Good.

>>14600898 #
>>14600900 #
>>14600926 #
None of these say "space exists when it is occupied by not-space." That's his dry gibberish you made up.

[Anonymous No.14601277]

>>14601222
>how do you differentiate between them?
With a ruler.

>if there's truly nothing in the vacuum, what are you measure?
Like anything else, you measure the distance between two points in space. Matter is irrelevant. If it makes you feel better, then realize that there is matter right at the border of a vacuum by definition. So you can measure between two pieces of matter along the border if for some reason the concept of space is too hard for you.

[Anonymous No.14601279]

>>14601222
>if there's nothing to differentiate it from whats outside the vacuum
??? Of course the border would be where matter is, others or wouldn't be the border, it would just be more vacuum.

>youre a fucking retard
Major projection.

[Anonymous No.14601292]

>>14600828
A true vacuum should just collapse in on itself. A true vacuum should take 0s to traverse. A true vacuum shouldn't exist; it's practically a synonym for 'non-existence'.

There's the old Latin saying, Natura Abhorret Vacuum: nature abhors a vacuum. That's good logic, good "natural philosophy". So why did the natural philosophers (i.e. the scientists) abandon this sound principle and establish the absurd physical structure of a vacuum, a literal nothing that somehow has spacial dimensions?

It's my understanding that up to the early 20th century, physicists taught that the universe was permeated by a base energetic field called the "luminiferous (light-carrying) aether". It's this aetheric medium that exists everywhere in physical space, and is really what constitutes physical space on the the lowest level. It is this field/medium that carries light: a light wave is a ripple in the aether the same way am ocean wave is a ripple in the water.

Is dark matter / dark energy the aether under another name? Are scientists beginning to suspect the "vacuum of space" isn't si vacuous after all ?

Why did physicists get rid of a sensible notion of an aether, and replace it with the wacky surrealist concept of a vacuum?

[Anonymous No.14601293]

>>14600842
Particles are better thought of as local quantized excitations in continuous fields. Empty areas aren't empty. Instead they are in enough balance that they don't generate the force levels associated with particles. All space had the possible properties of particles, flavor, isospin, spin, charge, hypercharge, color, etc. but these are balanced out by their antipodes to zero.

But there are short term fluctuations across space in the relative forces, which causes virtual particles to appear. These come in matter - antimatter pairs and annihilate before direct measurement is possible. This works because conservation of energy does not appear to hold within time limits for observability set by the uncertainty principal.

Actually, if you go deeper, there are a lot of experiments that seem like they may violate the conservation of energy. This happens within weak force interactions, and in some other experiments as well, and some cosmological theories have conservation of energy being violated to solve problems.

So empty space isn't actually empty, it's more self negating. Very Hegelian actually. Basically space is paired opposites negating each other until a symmetry breaks which allows for something, but this something has potential new negations too, and so you kick off a creation of entities, (the particle zoo) through something that could be called sublation.

Except that other explanations I've heard say to think of the fields as coils undergirding all space and as particles or local field excitations being vibrations of these coils. In this case virtual particles occur when the coil is momentarily out of harmony with all balancing aspects, allowing one potential frequency to produce a particle. Then it snaps back and produces an antiparticle. This sounds more like Heraclitus' tension of opposites to me, but Hegel could be worked in too.

[Anonymous No.14601300]

>>14601293
BTW, I know negation and sublation get used interchangeably sometimes, but I meant something different there. Negation is when two things cancel out, resulting in an observed "zero." As in zero charge.

But sublation in the dialectical is when there are two opposed concepts that should negate. But instead we have progress when there is a synthesis of the two. One entity is sublated, disappearing, but the triumphant entity takes on characteristics of the sublated entity to resolve the contradiction. Sort of how in beta plus decay a neutron takes on an electron and sheds a positron, resolving contradiction.

[Anonymous No.14601347]

>>14601257
>not me
Then why are you replying to me with your retarded unrelated wikipedia articles when you don't even know what I'm talking about you retarded faggot

[Anonymous No.14601353]

>>14601261
>relativity applies to light
Light is matter
>the curvature of space and time
Space is made of nothing, it doesn't have a curvature, time is the measurement of change which is entirely dependent on the observation of matter
Why am I even bothering to reply when you lack even the most fundamental knowledge of these topics

[Anonymous No.14601389]

>>14600828
Your conception of the word "space" is incorrect in therms of scientific view. Space is the medium, be it empty or not, and as adressed multiple times in this thread true vacuum most likely dont exist, just lower density spatial areas, the "space" or "vacuum" youre trying to adress or getting informed of, is more akin to the physical distance in an atom between the electron and the nuclei

[Anonymous No.14601405]

>>14601347
>Then why are you replying to me
Because you're spouting nonsense. Why did you lie about relativity having nothing to do with space?

[Anonymous No.14601410]

>>14601353
>Light is matter
No, light is a form of energy. Welcome to basic physics.

>Space is made of nothing
This is a categorical error. Things in space are made of something. Space is not in space.

>it doesn't have a curvature
Wrong. See >>14600939

>time is the measurement of change
It's not a measurement, it's a dimension. That's like saying space is a measurement. It's not, distance is.

Do you have any evidence for these claims? Of course not.

[Anonymous No.14601411]

>>14601405
Because it has nothing to do with space, even if only Earth existed and the rest of the universe was a fake fbi dome relativity would still continue to exist as long as there is matter and change in that matter relative to each other

[Anonymous No.14601418]

>>14601410
>light is a form of energy
Matter _is_ energy, you sack of numbest nuts, I'm not even gonna read past this line if you get something this basic wrong

[Anonymous No.14601417]

>>14601411
>Because it has nothing to do with space
Wrong. See >>14600986

>even if only Earth existed and the rest of the universe was a fake fbi dome
In order for Earth to exist it would have to be in space and relativity would therefore be applicable.

Why did you lie about relativity having nothing to do with space?

[Anonymous No.14601426]

>>14601418
>Matter _is_ energy
No, matter is made of atoms. Energy is not.

>I'm not even gonna read past this line
Then you concede the argument. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.14601527]

>>14601426
>matter is made of atoms
And what do you think atoms are made of dumbass
>then you concede the argument
Concede to what retard, you have no argument because you have zero fundamental understanding of how this works, pick up a book, start doing experiments and educate yourself, reading wikipedia articles with your 4th grade education and lack of comprehension of the english language isn't working

[Anonymous No.14601609]

>>14600926
what's there to prove? obviously things can move around, therefore there's space there

[Anonymous No.14601618]

>>14601527
>And what do you think atoms are made of dumbass
Subatomic particles. But thanks for agreeing with me that matter is not energy. Matter is made of atoms and energy is not.

>Concede to what
To every point you you failed to respond to:

>Space is made of nothing
This is a categorical error. Things in space are made of something. Space is not in space.

>it doesn't have a curvature
Wrong. See >>14600939

>time is the measurement of change
It's not a measurement, it's a dimension. That's like saying space is a measurement. It's not, distance is.

Do you have any evidence for these claims? Of course not.

>Because it has nothing to do with space
Wrong. See >>14600986

>even if only Earth existed and the rest of the universe was a fake fbi dome
In order for Earth to exist it would have to be in space and relativity would therefore be applicable.

Why did you lie about relativity having nothing to do with space?

[Anonymous No.14601619]

>>14601618
what are subatomic particles made of

[Anonymous No.14601628]

>>14601609
you are talking about spatial dimensions, which is a subjective and completely relative property of space, it's mathematics, not physics.

[Anonymous No.14601630]

>>14601619
Either other subatomic particles or they are already fundamental. How does this resound to the fact that matter is made of atoms and energy isn't?

[Anonymous No.14601632]

>>14601628
no i'm not, i'm talking about space

>>14601630
if they are fundamental then why are they capable of converting into other particles

[Anonymous No.14601635]

>>14601632
>if they are fundamental then why are they capable of converting into other particles
I don't understand the question, fundamental just means not made of some other particle.

[Anonymous No.14601637]

>>14601635
and yet they can all be converted into other particles under various circumstances, many of which are also fundamental, so clearly there's a mechanism that allows for that

[Anonymous No.14601647]

>>14601637
>and yet they can all be converted
So? Matter can be converted to energy, but converted implies they aren't the same to begin with. Which is the point you seem to be avoiding.

[Anonymous No.14601648]

>>14601618
>Subatomic particles
And those are made of ____
The answer you are looking for is fundamental particles, concidentally what a photon happens to be, because the fundamental particles that make up atoms are made of the exact same energy as photons, why photons can't make subatomic particles like quarks is because they lack mass and charge, not only that, the electron isn't even a subatomic particle, it's a fundamental particle, made of pure energy just like photons and quarks and all the other fundamental particles, differing only in minute properties that allow it to behave differently.
Don't bother replying to me anymore, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.14601657]

>>14601647
the contrary, full conversion implies they are fundamentally the same thing, just with different names for different states of that same thing

it's like if there was no name for matter and then suddenly two fucks started to argue if solids and liquids are actually made up of the same thing, and because there was no word for matter there was no way to express that so they would both feel entirely right because they are in fact both entirely right

you know perfectly well what the anon meant when he said matter and energy are the same thing

[Anonymous No.14601666]

>>14601648
>And those are made of ____
See >>14601630

>because the fundamental particles that make up atoms are made of the exact same energy as photons
I don't know what you mean by "made of energy" but so what? A car is made from metal and tires. That doesn't mean tires and metal are cars. Energy is not matter.

And thanks for again conceding to all the points you failed to respond to. Why did you lie about relativity having nothing to do with space?

[Anonymous No.14601684]

>>14601657
>the contrary, full conversion implies they are fundamentally the same thing
No it doesnt. If they were the same thing then there would be no need or ability to convert between them.

>you know perfectly well what the anon meant when he said matter and energy are the same thing
No, if you actually read the thread. He first made the silly claim that relativity only applies to matter, then he said light is matter, then he said energy is matter. So he's just backtracking from bullshit over and over.

[Anonymous No.14601691]

>>14601684
>No it doesnt. If they were the same thing then there would be no need or ability to convert between them.
then you're saying solids and liquids aren't both fundamentally matter, because that's the same thing

see, this is why people tell you you make semantic arguments, the simple lack of a common word tripped you up and you're apparently incapable of forming thoughts for wordless concepts

[Anonymous No.14601720]

>>14601666
I told you to stop replying to me, you are retarded, beyond help, you are a retard who keeps burning his hand on the stove and denying it's hot despite all the evidence pointing otherwise, because you refuse to listen and you refuse to learn.

[Anonymous No.14601862]

>>14601691
>then you're saying solids and liquids aren't both fundamentally matter
No, I'm saying solids and liquids are not the same. It's really not that hard to understand. Relativity is not just about matter, light is not matter, energy is not matter. No matter how hard you try to move the goalposts, it's not going to work.

[Anonymous No.14601863]

>>14601720
>I told you to stop replying to me
And?

Thanks for conceding to every point i made. We're done here.

[Anonymous No.14601864]

>>14601862
your arguments are vacuous and semantic, you understand what is being said but ignore all attempts at communication in favor of confrontation

[Anonymous No.14601869]

>>14601864
>your arguments are vacuous and semantic
There is nothing semantic about the fact that relativity is about more than matter. Try again.

[Anonymous No.14601877]

>>14601869
nah, i'm satisfied with the conclusion here and am gonna go outside now, have fun enjoyably arguing with others anon

[Anonymous No.14601883]

>>14601666
I'm sorry for insulting you, anon, but look at it this way, there is no matter, there is only energy, because energy is matter, the only thing that gives you the illusion of matter is the interactions between energy, there is no such thing as solid, liquid or gas, it is all just energy buzzing against eachother, even if you put together three quarks to make a proton that proton isn't a separate thing, it is still just energy only behaving differently, even if you put together protons, neutrons and electrons to make atoms, those atoms are not separate objects, they are still energy, just behaving differently and this goes up until infinity, because on the smallest of scales, everything is made up of energy. Atoms are no different to tge fundamental particles that give rise to them, they just have more mass, charge, spin, etc... and just like these differences cause fundamental particles to behave differently, so do they for atoms, because it's all just energy.

[Anonymous No.14602019]

>>14601877
>nah, i'm satisfied with the conclusion here
You can be satisfied with an indcorrect conclusion but it's still incorrect. The only semantics here are the semantics resorted to in order to distract from the fact that relativity applies to more than matter.

>am gonna go outside now, have fun enjoyably arguing with others anon
I'm outside waking my dogs right now.

[Anonymous No.14602030]

>>14601883
>there is no matter
But there is.

>because energy is matter
No, energy is not made of atoms.

You're desperately equivocating in order to distract from the fact you spouted a bunch of ridiculous bullshit about relativity. Just stop.

[Anonymous No.14602040]

Dark matter is shark matter.

[Anonymous No.14602829]

>>14602030
Oh wow, my bad, you really are buttfuck retarded, end your life so future generations don't have to suffer

[Anonymous No.14603146]

>>14602829
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting you lied.

[Anonymous No.14604121]

>>14600835
>My theory isn't a theory, it's an anti-theory
Oh my god its a pseud
well that settles it then
/thread

[Anonymous No.14606435]

>>14600828
There is no Vacuum and no Dark Matter does not exist. Go read Newton's Inverse Square Law and Hannes' Magnetohydrodynamics. Explains it perfectly well, sadly the (((narrative))) wants Science to derail. If you know, you know.

[Anonymous No.14608554]

>>14606435
if they don't exist, then why are they observable

[Anonymous No.14610607]

>>14600828
Potential is a thing.

[Anonymous No.14612003]

>>14600828
You have shit in space
You take shit out, you get vacuum
There will always be some shit out there hanging around but basically not a lot of shit is good enough
What do you not understand?

[Anonymous No.14612064]

>>14612003
did someone really poop in space

[Anonymous No.14612388]

>>14612064
Yeah, that's what "dark" matter is.