Principle: Space is NOT a thing. Space has no structure or substance. Space is a mental concept of the human mind that we use to imagine the imaginary container in which real things reside. I find no credibility in the alternative, which is space-a-thing with structure and substance. Why? This is why!
Every experiment has provided no evidence for space-as-a-thing.
But the big no-no is that space-as-a-thing violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. If the Standard Model of cosmology is correct, then the Big Bang event created the space-as-a-thing from scratch; of nothing at all. Although it is postulated as a given, no one has yet been able to come up with an adequate or even credible way how that happened or could even happen. Worse, that process is underway. Recall that the late Sir Fred Hoyle was criticized for advocating the Steady State Universe requiring the creation of matter out of nothing – something like one atom of hydrogen per cubic mile per year or some order of magnitude similar to that. Hoyle couldn’t provide a mechanism. Of course his answer was that the alternate Big Bang event created all at once out of nothing, again with no mechanism given, but that was apparently okay, while his creation out of nothing was not. Well, creation out of nothing is not okay in any cosmology.
I must really admire the audacity of some cosmologists in their popular writings. In a chapter they will mention the First Law of Thermodynamics about how energy (hence matter) cannot be created or destroyed, but can only be changed from one form to another. In other words, there is no such thing as a cosmic free lunch; you cannot create something out of nothing. But in another chapter they will note how the energy density of the cosmos is unchanging or how it is a constant even though the universe is expanding. This immediately contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics. Since space-as-a-thing translates into the creation of dark energy and dark energy in turn translates into the creation of space-as-a-thing (each creating more of the other out of absolutely nothing), that is a free cosmic lunch. They – cosmologists – contradict themselves. If they don’t realize they’ve done it, they don’t deserve to be in academia. If they realize this contradiction without commenting on it, they deserve to be kicked out of academia.
So if you’re advocating space-as-a-thing, you’re advocating the creation of something out of nothing, and therefore you’re advocating that the First Law of Thermodynamics be negated, even as I write and as you read. Good luck with that premise.
Motion, and its variations (acceleration, deceleration, momentum, rotation, etc.) is completely independent of space-as-a-thing or even space-as-a-not-thing. Remember that famous “New York Times” editorial from the early 20th century, which said that traveling on a rocket was pure deception on the grounds that there was nothing in space for the rocket’s exhaust to hold. Push. That editorial was revoked on the day of the moon landing! So space travel via a rocketship is possible even if space is NOT a thing, as all relevant forces act independently of whether or not space exists. If one persists in trying to link motion and space-as-a-thing, find an equation that includes motion that also has space-as-a-thing as one of the required parameters.
Twenty questions (give or take): If space is a thing…
Why the expression “the vacuum of space”? What ‘thing’ do you need to remove from space to get a perfect vacuum? What does the ‘thing’ consist of? What is his chemistry? How does it smell, since it’s right in front of you? Can you stick out your tongue and taste the ‘thing’ that makes space a thing? What other properties does it have that you (or instrumentation) can detect? What are the associated particles, forces and fields that prop up the space-as-one-thing? What is the density of space? If the space has a density, How does space-as-a-thing change the Standard Model of particle physics? Would the universe be different today if the thing-ness of space had never existed? if, how would it be different and if it were, wouldn’t you even be here to worry about it? In other words, is the thing-ness of space required or essential to your own existence? With our advanced technologies, can we change the nature of that ‘thing’ property of space through some physical process? Is the thing-ness of space a resource we could tap into, similar to how we could mine the asteroid belt for resources? The speed of light is slower in glass than in water, and slower in water than in air, and slower in air than in space, so if space is a thing, would the speed of light be even faster than it is now if you were to remove the thing-ness? can remove the space? is the thing-ness of space required or vital to your own existence? Is the thing-ness of space a resource we could tap into, similar to how we could mine the asteroid belt for resources? With our advanced technologies, can we change the nature of that ‘thing’ property of space through some physical process? Is the thing-ness of space a resource we could tap into, similar to how we could mine the asteroid belt for resources? The speed of light is slower in glass than in water, and slower in water than in air, and slower in air than in space, so if space is a thing, would the speed of light be even faster than it is now if you took the thing-ness off can remove the space? is the thing-ness of space required or vital to your own existence? With our advanced technologies, can we change the nature of that ‘thing’ property of space through some physical process? The speed of light is slower in glass than in water, and slower in water than in air, and slower in air than in space, so if space is a thing, would the speed of light be even faster than it is now if you took the thing-ness off can remove the space? ownership of the space by some physical process? Is the thing-ness of space a resource we could tap into, similar to how we could mine the asteroid belt for resources? The speed of light is slower in glass than in water, and slower in water than in air, and slower in air than in space, so if space is a thing, would the speed of light be even faster than it is now if you took the thing-ness off can remove the space? ownership of the space by some physical process? Is the thing-ness of space a resource we could tap into, similar to how we could mine the asteroid belt for resources? The speed of light is slower in glass than in water, and slower in water than in air, and slower in air than in space, so if space is a thing, would the speed of light be even faster than it is now if you took the thing-ness off can remove the space?
Proof that space is not a thing
If space were a thing, nothing could move. There has to be a state of nothing along with a state of something (the Standard Model of particle physics and resulting emerging things like atoms, molecules, and people) so that those things can get from point A to point B unhindered. If space were a thing, some of the Standard Model things would be akin to 100 people trapped in a standard elevator (or elevator), or say 200 people crammed onto what should be defined as an overcrowded bus. You couldn’t go from the back of the elevator to the front; from the back of the bus to the front door of the bus. There’s no state of nothing that the people in the back can get through. You can only move because there is some nothing to go to or shove other things in to make room for you. If space is a thing, then there is no nothing in the universe; the universe is full of things (the standard model plus space-as-a-thing) and no movement is possible.
Anyone advocating that space-is-a-thing should shoulder the burden of proof and at the very least provide solid plate-in-the-lab evidence. Either that or they would stop talking about it as if the concept of space-as-a-thing had been set in stone and the question of the nature of space had now been settled for all eternity. It’s not settled.