What is the general consensus on this forum in relation to the existance of time-energy? By time-energy I mean "zero point energy" or energy within the fabric of space/time. I realise its a relatively new field recieving little exposure and a lot of ridicule from "experts". I am NOT an expert. I am just curious and would like to hear peoples opinions and theories. Any experimental and/or theoretical proofs or dis-proofs welcome. :)

Originally posted by Blaah!
What is the general consensus on this forum in relation to the existance of time-energy? By time-energy I mean "zero point energy" or energy within the fabric of space/time. I realise its a relatively new field recieving little exposure and a lot of ridicule from "experts". I am NOT an expert. I am just curious and would like to hear peoples opinions and theories. Any experimental and/or theoretical proofs or dis-proofs welcome. :) Zero point energy is simply the vibrational energy of an object that remains after it has been cooled to absolute zero. It is not a new field of study and it is not ridiculed by experts. It is widely accepted and almost as old as quantum theory.

Originally posted by Nasor
Zero point energy is simply the vibrational energy of an object that remains after it has been cooled to absolute zero. It is not a new field of study and it is not ridiculed by experts. It is widely accepted and almost as old as quantum theory.

Is that the "official word"?

I have read many different explanations of what it "might be".

It is hard to tell sometimes whether something is:
1.) a "crackpot" theory that goes against accepted belief
2.) differing "accepted" qualified views and hypotheses of yet undetermined phenomena
or
3.) a free for all to explain something that no one has any "accepted" qualified views about yet

If iti is at the point of absolute zero then the simple fact is htat it cannot exist, because absolute zero is impossible, you can get extremely close , as in .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000001 as close to it, and yet it is still not absolute zero

The third law of thermodynamis prohibits zero energy.

Originally posted by one_raven
Is that the "official word"? I have read many different explanations of what it "might be".
Zero point energy is definitely the vibrational energy that would remain is something is cooled to absolute zero. People seem to have a lot of really wacky ideas about zero point energy (like the guy who started this thread), but that's what it really is. If you doubt that this is a well-accepted view, look in "Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles" by Robert Eisberg and Robert Resnick, two respected physicists. It's a great book, and a standard introductory text on quantum physics. If you want to know what quantum physics really is and what it's about, I would strongly suggest picking up a copy somewhere rather than hanging around crackpot web pages and reading 'popular' books on quantum physics.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/047187373X/qid=1053322004/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/103-2539144-2819040?v=glance&s=books

Yes, of course it's theoretically impossible to really cool anything down to absolute zero. Zero point energy is the energy that would remain if it could be cooled at absolute zero. As something is cooled to absolute zero its vibrational energy approaches a limit; that limit (which is non-zero) is the zero-point energy.

He he... Thats gotta be some kind of record for " Least amounts of posts required to be called a wacko" :D

Nasor- Thanx for clarifying the definition. :) The energy I'm talking about is the latent energy within the aether itself. ie the theoretical time-energy that remains within a vaccum once all other energy and matter are removed. Time has motion in a vaccum so it must have energy!

Also, can someone please explain the 3rd law to me as I am stupid. :confused: Why does the rate of reaction decrease as the process gets closer to equilibrium?

Hi.

I think that your questions are reasonable. Sorry if I had not understand you correctly but you probably mean how it is possible something to moves and to have zero or very close to zero temperature?

Well, the temperature is a result from the chaotic movement of particles, the unidirectional movement is not a measure of the temperature. So one body can have energy even at zero-point temperature - it is its kinetic energy of unidirectional movement.

"zero point energy" or energy within the fabric of space/time - space/time does not have energy, energy comes from the movement of particles (which are local distortions of the space/time).

One last thing to clarify. Gravity and its intermediators - gravitons do not have any contribution to the temperature , gravitons do not have kinetic energy and do not have vibrations.
So even at zero temperature you can have gravity.

Personally , I think of ZPE as interactions between our 4-d world and the other 6-7 dimensions (if you believe in M-theory). The law of conservation of energy wouldn't have to be violated as you "draw" the energy from a higher plane to a lower plane, the energy of the whole 10-11 dimensional system would remain the same. The greates challenge is, that these postulated extra dimensions are curled up very small and tight, so that they are not easily accesed, but we really should be greatfull for those small orbifolds, otherwise (assuming that mass is just a measured standing wave in time) the waves could not crystalize within a small spot and our universe would just be an amorphous soup of waves...

Whaaaaa?

Platos' "man in a cave" theory says that 4-d reality is merely the "shadow" of a much denser, higher frequency multi-dimensional "reality". Although I dont completely understand it, I think string theory agrees with this and if I'm not mistaken, also what vortexx is saying. This is the basic theory in which cop>1 devices, such as the MEG device (motionless electromagnetic generator, recently granted a US patent) draw energy from higher dimensions, from the fabric of space/time itself. This is NOT a perpetual motion device, conservation of energy is preserved, it is merely drawn from a higher dimension. Science fiction?... Check out the patent yourself....

http://www.cheniere.org/megstatus.htm

Plato's cave is an analogy about how people perceive the world differently when they understand the way things really are. It doesn't have anything to do with dimensions.

A device does not have to work in order to be granted a parent. The patent office does not care whether or not your device works. Something being patented does nothing to increase its credibility.

Yeah ok, I worded my plato statement wrong, but you can see how it applies. You're right, a patent doesn't necessarily give credibility, but experimental evidence does, which they have. Have a good look at the site then tell me what you think... This device may well change the world as we know it, if the energy consortiums dont get to it first :bugeye:

Hmm... The silence is so deafening, I almost cant hear the sound of my one hand clapping...
I am really interested to hear peoples educated views on the MEG unit. A lot of the stuff on the site goes way over my head, so anyone with a decent understanding, who's actually read the site, please give your opinions...

vortexxx and that site you linked are crackpots.

Any reason lethe?, or did you just feel like saying that?

Originally posted by Blaah!
Any reason lethe?, or did you just feel like saying that?

any reason? yes, there is a reason: i said it because it is true. that is the reason. did i "just feel like saying" it? no, i have little interest, but i noticed your post talking about the deafening silence. you seemed anxious for someone to respond, so i did. my response? you are dealing with crackpots.

that site you linked to: O(3) electrodynamics? are you kidding me? this paper was pretty ridiculous.

"Its true coz I said its true"... Not really the detailed feedback I was hoping for...
I personally don't know enough about the subject to be able to judge the truth for myself, so yes, I am "anxious" to hear opinions of those with more knowledge in the field. Seems unusual to me that only one person has jumped up and automatically dismissed them as crackpots even tho this thread has almost 200 hits. Normally something like this would be torn to shreds on this forum unless it did seem to hold some credibility, at least worthy of a closer look. The device, according to the website, has been independently replicated and one of the co-inventors, Tom Bearden, does have a decent list of credentials, according to the site anyway. So c'mon people, its not that scary, let me know what you think...

Just spotted the MEG thread. Reply in that one, not this one :)

Well to say that space and time is a "fabric" I find it rather crazy.(And I know I will be looked down apon by all thoughs "religious science" thinkers for that one. (or in other words extreme relativists)) Indeed space... space is the absence of matter. Its like when you turn off the light.. theres dark. And time is a concept of man. But I do believe that to some degree there is energy stored in "space/time."

Originally posted by ManmadeUFOs
Well to say that space and time is a "fabric" I find it rather crazy.
The 'fabric' of space is just an analogy to make the concept easier to understand.

Indeed space... space is the absence of matter.
Why can't space and matter be in the same place. 'Space' in relativity (and it seems this thread) refers to dimensional measurements (the lines on a graph), not just open space.

But I do believe that to some degree there is energy stored in "space/time."
So you don't believe in the 'fabric', but you believe it stores energy? hmmm....

Time is a concept. That is all there is to it. Time is not a property of space or matter. Time is not a thing. The only thing that puts "time to life" is the human mind.
Pertaining to space.. as I said it is the absence of matter. If space was a fabric then you could argue that as there is flash lights.. there could be dark lights. "When I turn on my dark light it causes the light to go away." or "When I turn on my "space pump" it pushes the matter out of the way." That just doesn't work.

Originally posted by ManmadeUFOs
Pertaining to space.. as I said it is the absence of matter.
When you say 'fabric of space/time' the term space is not meant to mean only empty space, but all space (you can have a filled space).

If space was a fabric then you could argue that as there is flash lights.. there could be dark lights.
Anagolies have limits...however, your example makes no sense.

"When I turn on my dark light it causes the light to go away." or "When I turn on my "space pump" it pushes the matter out of the way." That just doesn't work.
Of course not, but nobody is claiming that space and matter can not coexist besides you.

Originally posted by Blaah!
He he... Thats gotta be some kind of record for " Least amounts of posts required to be called a wacko" :D


no, once i posted about peeing in a pringle can when i was very tired and half asleep. that was pretty bad... i wonder if that has been removed yet?

blaah,

Originally posted by Blaah!
He he... Thats gotta be some kind of record for " Least amounts of posts required to be called a wacko"

ANS: Here we go, somebody trying to steal my record. I got labled on my first post.:D

Since this is purportedly a crackpot string, I should be able to introduce some crackpot ideas without upsetting the applecart.

When thinking about energy stored in space recall:

1 - Fields around a coil.

2 - EM fields orthogonal to a moving object.

3 - In #2 consider that energy pushing an object (acceleration) to relavistic velocities, the object undergoes Lorentz Contraction in the direction of motion and the EM field expands orthogonally.

It isn't a large leap to also view that perhaps the accelerating energy being applied must also undergo the same bifurcation.

That is a portion of the applied energy goes into the orthogonal EM field and does not cause acceleration. More energy less response in the object. The results of that view explains why you get a relavistic momentum curve (the old relavistic mass view).

It becomes an issue of energy transfer efficiency decrease at relavistic velocities between source and accelerated object and not any real change in mass or true relavistic momentum.

Just as the field around a coil and the EM field of a moving object collapse back to the coil, or object, upon decelleration, any such stored energy from trying to accelerate an object towards v = c returns to the interial mass giving it excess momentum in terms of inertial mass and its achieved velocity. Hence the view of relavistic momentum.

My point is that Relavistic principles CAN have mechanical, physical principles that are understandable. It gives greater comfort to acceptance of Relativity mathematically. This view does no harm to Relativity but I think supplements it in a way that I would like all Relativity to be explained.

This simple view can be found through trigonometry.

Makes sense to me Mac.... Have you had a look at the MEG site yet? I'd be interested to hear your opinions on longitudinal waves and "time polarized" scalar waves. Some of the other guys on this site have labeled it crackpot BS and say the formulas don't make sense, but I'm wondering if its possible they have just skimmed the info and misinterpreted it without being open to these new ideas. Dont know enough physics myself to fully judge.

Blaah,

Yes, I looked but No I didn't give it much thought. I had seen it before your post also. I have looked at many of these things.

Most are by well meaning crackpots or worse by con's but I have seen a couple that seem to have enough merit to warrant a deeper look.

This is one I have mixed feelings about, which is why I haven't taken the time to look further. But when I get time I intend to.

This is an unqualified guess but I don't think it has any real merit, I just can't say why until I find the loop hole though.

So do I think there is power available to be had. Yes. Has anybody actually tapped into it yet. I don't think so.

For why I say yes, see my string on Permanent Magnet Power.

Cant find your string on permanent magnet power. Have you heard of the lutec 1000? Do you think it works? :confused:

blaah,

No. I'm not familiar with that name. Or I may have forgotten the name but saw the principle. I can't say.

The Lutec 1000 is an Austrralian invention, according to the inventors producing cop > 1.0 . It uses the power of permanent magnets... Dunno if it works or not but the site says its going to be the first mass produced "free" energy machine...

http://www.lutec.com.au/

Blaah,

I hadn't seen this one but I extracted the patent application number from the article and will be looking at the details more closely.

It is based on a permanent magnet motor. I have built PMM's but never got one to continue to operate.

I have believed I could be done but can't tell from the information if it looks valid or a hoax at this point. After (if I can) see it in more detail I will post my reaction.

Thanks for the link.

quick question re perpetual magnetic motion:

why doesn't this work, 10 or 12 north magnets in a circle angled in one direction with a dial in the middle that has south magnets on both ends. why does it not go on spinning?

yayacatfight,


quick question re perpetual magnetic motion:

why doesn't this work, 10 or 12 north magnets in a circle angled in one direction with a dial in the middle that has south magnets on both ends. why does it not go on spinning?

ANS: In part because magnetic flux is a rounded field. That is it isn't N and S poles but consists of curvedlines of foce between the poles.

The consequence is that magnets produce sidewards forces as well as forces at each pole. This produces bumps in the flux so that a drawing of the combined flux of a series of magnets around a circle looks like gear teeth.

To get in a position to be repelled or attracted by another pole the magnet must undergo attraction or repulsion of the opposite direction.

ahhh, got it. thanks MacM

Originally posted by Blaah!
Nasor- Thanx for clarifying the definition. :) The energy I'm talking about is the latent energy within the aether itself. ie the theoretical time-energy that remains within a vaccum once all other energy and matter are removed. Time has motion in a vaccum so it must have energy!

Also, can someone please explain the 3rd law to me as I am stupid. :confused: Why does the rate of reaction decrease as the process gets closer to equilibrium?

Some general advice to all quackers:

You need to give up the use of fancy terminology (aether, time-energy) and break this shizzy down to its barest minimum. Too much jargon will confuse you and does not = physics. Keep only things in your head that actually explain something useful which you cannot do without.

Time has NO motion in a vacuum. Time is just a perceived characteristic of matter, just as space is a perceived characteristic of matter. It's just a variable, nothing more nothing less. Ask yourself what is time, if there was no one to perceive it? Matter itself has no real 'solidity' beyond your perceptions of it. Also, why invoke the aether -- it doesn't exist, nor is it required to exist.You are using terms which have specific meanings in a very loose manner, resulting in 100% chance that you will confuse yourself and get nowhere.

The question about rate of reaction relates to Le Chatelier's principle (assuming you are talking about chemical reaction equilibria), which says that a process will drive itself towards equilbrium (the progress of the reaction in one direction equals the progress in the opposite direction, equlibrium doesn't mean everything 'stops'). :eek:

Originally posted by yayacatfight
quick question re perpetual magnetic motion:

why doesn't this work, 10 or 12 north magnets in a circle angled in one direction with a dial in the middle that has south magnets on both ends. why does it not go on spinning?

(1) no such things as 'two south magnets' or 'north magnets'. Magnetic fields (as MacM said above correctly, !! whoa !! ) come as dipoles. That is, you have a south for every north. So the lines of flux extend from north to south. The field around a magnet (which you may have seen in pictures) looks like a toroid (not spherical). It is more evident in the case of electromagnets since they usually are made with a hole in the center where the lines of flux pass through in the opposing direction -- that is, the flux lines form a donut.

(2) even if your setup was valid (i.e., even if there were 'south magnets') all things move to find their lowest energy state -- they would therefore spin until the south magnets were as far away from the north magnets as possible so that there was no net force.

If you want perpetual motion, that's quite easy -- just go out into space, and throw an object -- it will continue to move in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. The problem with this type of perpetual motion is that it is absolutely useless to get energy from this. That is, as you remove energy from this system, you slow the thing down until it eventually stops.

So perpetual motion is certainly possible, its just that most of it is absolutely useless for purposes of generating power / energy in a self-sustaining manner. :cool: :m:

GundamWing,

(i.e., even if there were 'south magnets') all things move to find their lowest energy state -- they would therefore spin until the south magnets were as far away from the north magnets as possible so that there was no net force.


ANS: One thing I see wrong with your post is that I believe you have N/S repelling?

Gundam wing... Cheers for explaining le chateliers principle.
Time has NO motion in a vacuum. Time is just a perceived characteristic of matter, just as space is a perceived characteristic of matter. It's just a variable, nothing more nothing less. Ask yourself what is time, if there was no one to perceive it? Matter itself has no real 'solidity' beyond your perceptions of it. Also, why invoke the aether -- it doesn't exist, nor is it required to exist.You are using terms which have specific meanings in a very loose manner, resulting in 100% chance that you will confuse yourself and get nowhere.

how can you say time has no motion in a vacuum? Time continues to flow regardless of whether there is any matter IMO. Agreed, matter needs to be present for you to be able to measure the flow of time, but please explain why you think time stops if you remove all matter from a system? Is light considered a form of matter?(?) What happens if you shine light in one side of a vacuum and it comes out the other... Are you saying no time would pass between the light entering the system and exiting it? As previously stated by myself, my physics isn't really up to scratch, but your statement doesn't seem to make any sense, please explain. Saying space is just a percieved characteristic of matter, to me, is like saying the road is a percieved characteristic of a car. IMO this is not true. The two exist independant of one another and I believe the "aether" does exist as the fabric of space/time itself. How can you measure the volume of a vacuum when its material dimensions equal zero? The aether is the blank canvas providing a frame of reference.

blaah,

Your physics may not be up to scratch but your head is certainly screwed on right. Keep your firm grip on reality.

The aether is the blank canvas providing a frame of reference.

Dear God Mac, you're right (for a change). In all the crackpot-ishness I made an error. The south pole magnet would naturally settle facing the north pole of the other magnet, my infinite apologies for this oversight.

God, i'm becoming a quackpot. :eek: :m:

Originally posted by Blaah!
Gundam wing... Cheers for explaining le chateliers principle.


how can you say time has no motion in a vacuum? Time continues to flow regardless of whether there is any matter IMO. Agreed, matter needs to be present for you to be able to measure the flow of time, but please explain why you think time stops if you remove all matter from a system? Is light considered a form of matter?(?) What happens if you shine light in one side of a vacuum and it comes out the other... Are you saying no time would pass between the light entering the system and exiting it? As previously stated by myself, my physics isn't really up to scratch, but your statement doesn't seem to make any sense, please explain. Saying space is just a percieved characteristic of matter, to me, is like saying the road is a percieved characteristic of a car. IMO this is not true. The two exist independant of one another and I believe the "aether" does exist as the fabric of space/time itself. How can you measure the volume of a vacuum when its material dimensions equal zero? The aether is the blank canvas providing a frame of reference.

I never said time stops when you remove all matter. Time isn't going anywhere period. This idea that "time flows" is in your head. Time isn't a physical thing, just as space isn't a physical thing. It's all up there in your head.

That's my point. Let's leave time and space as the variables they really are, and not given them physical solidity which they do not have. :)

And you cannot measure the volume of any 'real' thing. The ruler itself which occupies the space in your head, is still IN YOUR HEAD. You can't show me a physical ruler, because I also exist in your freakin' head. I hope i'm not confusing you. Or not. :bugeye:

Originally posted by Blaah!
Platos' "man in a cave" theory says that 4-d reality is merely the "shadow" of a much denser, higher frequency multi-dimensional "reality". Although I dont completely understand it, I think string theory agrees with this and if I'm not mistaken, also what vortexx is saying. This is the basic theory in which cop>1 devices, such as the MEG device (motionless electromagnetic generator, recently granted a US patent) draw energy from higher dimensions, from the fabric of space/time itself. This is NOT a perpetual motion device, conservation of energy is preserved, it is merely drawn from a higher dimension. Science fiction?... Check out the patent yourself....

http://www.cheniere.org/megstatus.htm

What surprises me is that Tom Bearden is listed on this patent. The man is pretty smart, so if he's on it -- good chance it may have some merit. I'd look into this one deeper guys (***all the physicists here***). He worked out something related to "scalar electromagnetic field potentials" by re-examining Nikola Tesla's own work. I found it in the engineering library one day and couldn't stop reading. The man backs it up with some hardcore mathematical derivations, explanations, and so on, unlike your average quack. Definitely worth the effort in my opinion! :cool: :m:

GundamWing,

Keeping you guys straight is a full time job.:D

Glad to see your flexability with T. Beardon.

Also I think H. Lindner deserves a closer look as well. His string on the Cosmism I think is well thought out and written.

Originally posted by MacM
GundamWing,

Keeping you guys straight is a full time job.:D

Glad to see your flexability with T. Beardon.

Also I think H. Lindner deserves a closer look as well. His string on the Cosmism I think is well thought out and written.

So far my opinion of Lindner is less than my interest in an unflushed toilet (no offense). He doesn't understand what he's talking about. I can see obvious flaws in his reasoning, and i'm not even a full-fledged physicist as some of the more qualified folks here on this board are. :m:

I never said time stops when you remove all matter. Time isn't going anywhere period. This idea that "time flows" is in your head. Time isn't a physical thing, just as space isn't a physical thing. It's all up there in your head.

I agree with you that we all live in our own interpretations of reality and it is impossible to give an objective view of reality but just because no-one can see true reality doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I'll rephrase... There is an inherent motion in the passing of time. How can reality move from one point in time to the next unless there is motion?
Space IS physical, just not material. Unliving objects cant percieve reality but they still interact accordingly. The tree falling in the woods does still produce a sound wave. Space is not an abstract concept, it is dimensional. Whether I can accurately measure it or not is'nt the issue, the fact is, "space" takes up space in the physical universe and therefore, IMO, must be classed as physical.

BTW glad to see you're giving Bearden a closer look! (Tesla is da man!):m:

...and you don't exist in my head. My version of you exists in my head. Otherwise, when I die, you will die also!:eek:

GundamWing,

So far my opinion of Lindner is less than my interest in an unflushed toilet (no offense). He doesn't understand what he's talking about. I can see obvious flaws in his reasoning, and i'm not even a full-fledged physicist as some of the more qualified folks here on this board are.


ANS: Ouch!. My comments were not an attempt to corner you. I just feel from reading some of his material he does an excellent job making a presentation. I would not attempt to argue his work. I don't know enough technically to do that sucessfully.

But I do think I am going to enjoy watching his strings here.

And also your prior responses had been fair. (As in balanced).

Originally posted by Blaah!
...and you don't exist in my head. My version of you exists in my head. Otherwise, when I die, you will die also!:eek:

Well, the fact remains you have no proof of my existence besides what's in your head. Neither do I have any proof of your existence beyond what's in my head. You have no independent way of verifying that you actually talked to a real person who goes by the name 'Gundam' on this board, besides the fact that I seem to interact with you in a 'natural' manner. So, yes, when you die, the version of 'me' that is in 'you' dies as well. But, in my perspective, you never existed outside my head, so how can I die because the person in my head died?

think more on it, you'll see that there is no way of knowing whether this person you talk to is actually 'independent' of you... :m:

Indeed, I am inclined to believe that it is the same sense of "I"ness that expresses itself through these 'bodies' in the 'cosmic mind' and falsely imposes multiplicity upon itself, thus it believes "you exist" and "i exist" as separate entities, when really its only looking at itself through multiple 'windows' or 'minds' which make it appear different. So the "I" ness in myself is the same "I" ness that expresses itself through your mind, and declares its independent existence. But it is the same "I". :cool:

BTW Tesla is definitely DA MAN.

Or MAYBE you're just looking WAY too far into this 'I exist, you exist' stuff. Let's put it this way. You and I walk through a crowded park. You see me as your mind sees me or whatever the hell you talk about, and visa versa. Now as we're talking about existing, I see several people I know and wave to them and they wave back while you stand there and watch them wave to me. Now there is more then one source who believes that I may exist in their mind and those sources overlap in perception of me; I now exist to several people who in turn see that I must exist to several OTHER people. Now for the hell of it I now run over and start beating the hell out of someone's car. So is the car thinking that I exist to crack a bat over its engine block? Or do I just exist and the car exists to the owner/the cops chasing me/to you dialing 911 all in their mind? See where I'm going with this? It's a much to complicate way of looking at things because not everything is aware of it's surroundings. As the example mentioned earlier, a tree falls in the woods and creates quite a bit of damage to, say, a house with noone in it. A rock falls and cracks another rock. Now don't tell me that we don't know that those actions didn't take place or didn't exist untill we saw the aftermath. The universe doesn't work that way. This isn't the Matrix.

Indeed, I am inclined to believe that it is the same sense of "I"ness that expresses itself through these 'bodies' in the 'cosmic mind' and falsely imposes multiplicity upon itself, thus it believes "you exist" and "i exist" as separate entities, when really its only looking at itself through multiple 'windows' or 'minds' which make it appear different. So the "I" ness in myself is the same "I" ness that expresses itself through your mind, and declares its independent existence. But it is the same "I".

I agree with this statement 100% I believe we are all different aspects of the one collective consciousness. However, what I'm saying is that there is a "template" of reality which exists seperate from consciousness but is still entwined within it.

think more on it, you'll see that there is no way of knowing whether this person you talk to is actually 'independent' of you...

Again, I agree with this statement, but how does this explain the existance of things which I've never witnessed nor thought about? If a particular meteorite of which, no creature, capable of perception, has previously seen, crashes into my house tomorrow, my having not previously percieved it isn't going to make it any less real!

" Indeed space... space is the absence of matter. "

Ok, then you said:

"But I do believe that to some degree there is energy stored in "space/time."

E = mc^2. Go look it up and get back to me.