Thread: Outer space
View Single Post
  #6  
Old December 17th 16, 10:02 PM posted to sci.space.history
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 554
Default Outer space

But I should also have stated that I agree with Dave's excellent point that when taken to the quantum extreme, there is this fascinating observation that where you thought there was nothing, you will find something.

Here this would be akin to renaming our planet Aqua, because you had applied your best logical reasoning. But then when you're investigating the ocean you find all these tiny bits of mud & sand floating around in some kind of colloidal suspension (solid within liquid). Then you'd scratch your head and muse that, "Hmm, perhaps there was some wisdom to calling it 'Earth' in the first place."

~ CT




On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 2:50:43 PM UTC-6, Stuf4 wrote:
From wrote:
If nature abhors a vacuum, why then is space pretty much a vacuum?Just got
thinking about it last night.


Your observation is excellent.

The ubiquitous saying...
"Nature abhors a vacuum" is a crock of ****.

It is only those extremely rare severely isolated pieces of the universe where matter has lumped together that serve as exceptions to the accurate rule:

Nature love a vacuum so much that you might as well name our entire universe 'Hoover'.


This is somewhat akin to that scifi author who found fault with naming our planet 'Earth'. There is much more water on its surface than there is dirt. A more fitting name would be something like "Hydra" or "Aqua".


It is only from our human ego-centered perspectives that a name like 'Earth' is condoned. Also, only from that severely limited perspective can one spout a statement like "nature abhors a vacuum" and everyone buys into it as making any sense. It is a starkly humancentric hyper-limited expression of nature that this "rule" refers to.

~ CT