Where is hidden Vacuum?

[socratus]

The unknown Universe: Where is hidden Vacuum?
Vacuum is hidden in every theory.
1.
Thermodynamics needs the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
2.
Maxwell electrodynamics needs the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
3.
SRT needs the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
4
GRT needs with the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
5.
Atom heeds the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
6.
Outer space needs with the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
7.
Religion doesn’t exist without the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
====.
The Vacuum is Source of the Universe
The Vacuum is Source of Consciousness.
The Vacuum is Fundamental Theory 0f Existence.

1. The infinite/ energy vacuum: T=0K,
2. The particle: C/D = pi, R/N= k , E = Mc^2 = kc^2 , h = 0 , i^2= -1
3. The spins: h =E/t , h =kb, h* = h/2pi ,
4. The photon, the inertia,
5. The electron: e^2 = h*ca, E = h*f , electromagnetic field
6. The gravitation, the star/ planet, the time,
7. The proton,
8. The atom(s),
9. The cell(s),
10. The Laws:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
11. The test.
=========.

Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
===============.
P.S.
The Future of Science
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless
infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/topics/space
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18 ... everything
!
==========

[nameless]

The unknown Universe: Where is hidden Vacuum?
Vacuum is hidden in every theory.

And will remain 'hidden' as it cannot exist.
And, no, not "every theory".
There is no "unknown Uiverse". There is no thing that can exist unless perceived by Conscious Perspective. That which exists is 'perceived/known'.
There has never been a 'complete' vaccuum perceived (as there would not be a 'thing' to perceive), therefore it cannot actually exist other than as notions and 'beliefs' in the minds of the 'theorists' and 'believers'.
Actually, invariably (it seems), the closer we inspect what is thought to be 'empty' of content, we not only find content of some sort, but often life!
The moon was once perceived to be a desert, now with better tools for examination, we find water and will, eventually (I predict) find 'life'.
We thought the oceanic depths to be a 'desert', now we find life, and life in abundance! The better the tools of perception, the more perceived.
The notion of an 'absolute void' stands with the same lack of evidence (but supported in/as 'beliefs') as the notions of 'eternity' and 'infinity'.

[socratus]

In 1928 Dirac proved the Existence of Vacuum
and ‘ virtual energetic particles’.
( Dirac’s sea and +E=Mc^2 and –E=Mc^2 )
Now we need to concrete and to understand some details.
For example:
1.
How can the ‘ virtual energetic particles’ with potential
energy –E=Mc^2 change into real particles with
active energy +E=Mc^2?
2.
How can the ‘ virtual energetic particles’ produce EM waves?
3.
How can the ‘ virtual energetic particles’ without mass
produce real mass?
4.
How can the ‘ virtual energetic particles’ create Gravity?
5.
How can the ‘ virtual energetic particles’ create Atom?
6.
Can the ‘ virtual energetic particles’ be source of Consciousness?
7.
Can we talking about Evolution of the ‘ virtual energetic particles’?
8.
Can the Vacuum and ‘ virtual energetic particles’ be basis of
Fundamental Theory 0f Existence?
=======.

[socratus]

Some more details.

THE GENESIS. (scheme.)
1
In the beginning was Vacuum some kind of
Infinite/ Eternal Energy Space: T = 0K
2
According to Quantum Theory this Infinite/ Eternal Energy
Space create ‘ virtual energetic particles – frozen light quanta ’
They are in the rest/ potential condition and have following
physical parameters:
Geometrical form : C/D = pi
Potential mass : R/N=k
Potential energy : E = Mc^2 = kc^2
Inner impulse : h = 0
Mathematical formula : i^2= -1
3
Moving Quantum of Light is a Photon

Planck: h =E/t h = 1, c=1.
Einstein: h =kb h =1, c =1
4
Working Quantum of Light / Photon is an Electron

Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck: h* = h/2pi , c>1
E = h*f
Sommerfeld: e^2 = h*ca (Electron)
The Lorentz transformations
5
Star formation:
e- -> k -> He II -> He I -> rotating He –> plasma reaction -
- -> thermonuclear reaction: ( P. Kapitza , L. Landau,
E.L. Andronikashvili theories )
( Theories of superconductivity and superfluidity.)
a) h*f > kT
b) h*f = kT
c) kT > h*f
6
As result of Star formation Proton was created
p ( Proton)
7
Evolution of interaction between Electron and Proton:
a) electromagnetic
b) nuclear
c) biological
8
The Laws:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
9.
Every theory must be tested logically ( theoretical ) and practically
a) Theory : Dualism of Consciousness: (consciousness/ subconsciousness)
b) Practice : Parapsychology . Meditation
==== .
#
The Future of Science is hidden in the ‘Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta’
#
I want to know how God created this world
I am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that element
I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details
/Einstein/
==========.
#
There is a strong tradition ( scientific and religious) that insists
that any time we say we know who God is, or what God wants,
we are committing an act of heresy.
== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.

[nameless]

In 1928 Dirac proved the Existence of Vacuum

Link?
Please alleviate my ignorance with a link to Dirac's 'evidence'?
The way to "prove the existence" of a vacuum is to produce one.
Present evidence.
As far as I am aware, it is all hypothesis and beliefs, like the hypothetical 'eternal' and the hypothetical 'infinite'.
No 'hypotheses', though, hypotheses are not evidence... They aren't even theory.
I am unaware of any true vacuum ever perceived.

Is it possible to create a true vacuum?
*Spoiler*
"In short, as far as current scientific knowledge tells us, you can't make a perfect vacuum."

[socratus]

" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac ./
==================== .

[nameless]

" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac ./
==================== .

If it cannot be perceived (to be described), it does not exist.

Also the quote is erroneous!
How can he possibly say that there is anything more complex than a vacuum, if a vacuum has never been perceived/defined/described? A vacuum might well be the most 'complex' thing (if one existed). How can he compare on an unknown scale? Poor logic. Erroneous expectations...

This was supposed to be an example of how he "proved the existence" a 'vacuum'?
Sorry, without evidence scientific or logical or philosophical, I would have to consign the notion of a 'vacuum', along with the notions of a 'Jesus walking on water', 'infinity' and 'eternity', to the hypothetical and naive.
Any evidence/perception (impossible) at all would remove them from that list. Until then, they are mere 'beliefs' and not science, philosophy or logic.

Actually, science daily finds/posits/perceives more and more 'stuff' where none was previously thought to exist. The notion of a 'vacuum' is daily retreating farther and farther into obscurity and obsolescence.
Hypotheses/theories built upon the above 'notions' likewise fail (my prediction).
Nature/existence doesn't 'abhor' a vacuum, it simply does not allow one.

[Arising_uk]

Is this not the problem that socratus is raising? That this 'vacuum'(what a word?) is undefined so far in Physics?

I'm at a loss to understand how in phil of sci the idea that what is not perceivable does not exist? You mean what is not transformable into our perception does not exist? If so, is there not a problem with the idea that what was previously not transformable must not have existed?
p.s.
socratus,
Why is it not the case that this 'vcauum' is the 'hardware' running the 'simulation'? As such, Physics, in the sense it is, will never be able to explain the 'vacuum'? Or have I misunderstood and you do think that Physics has explained the 'vacuum'?

[nameless]

Is this not the problem that socratus is raising? That this 'vacuum'(what a word?) is undefined so far in Physics?

He is building his house on the notion of a 'vacuum';

"The Future of Science
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless
infinite void."

"Can the Vacuum and ‘ virtual energetic particles’ be basis of
Fundamental Theory 0f Existence?"

"The Future of Science is hidden in the ‘Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta’"

He's got it all about 'vacuums' and 'photons' and 'electrons'.
I'm not even criticising the rest of his work when the foundation is so 'criticisable'.

I'm at a loss to understand how in phil of sci the idea that what is not perceivable does not exist?

No evidence.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor can there ever be evidence of something existing that is not perceived.
In other words, all that is evidenced to exist is perceived. There is no evidence of the existence of anything that is not perceived.

You mean what is not transformable into our perception does not exist?

Yes, 'that' which is not perceived (not necessarily by 'us', unless 'us' indicates all possible Perspectives) does not exist.

If so, is there not a problem with the idea that what was previously not transformable must not have existed?

No problem.
I don't know what you mean by 'transformable'. Perception is direct. We perceive information waves that are perceived/experienced as the Universe.
Nothing needs to 'transform' to be perceived. Perception/Perspective is that which 'transforms' Mind (undifferentiated potential) into existence/the Universe.
I repeat, that which exists is that which is perceived to exist.

'Vacuum' is not perceived, therefore has no existence (other than as a 'word' or a nebulous 'notion').

[gfellow]

In 1928 Dirac proved the Existence of Vacuum

The way to "prove the existence" of a vacuum is to produce one.

Nameless, I concur. Having given it some thought, there seems to be at least two ways to do this. One is an experiment easily within technological and budgetary parameters. The other will be a wait for specific data.
I've placed a video overview of the concept here, and a brief video description of experiment and prediction here.

Your impressions and comments would be of great interest to me.

[nameless]

^^^
Hi gfellow,
I would really like to see what you are offering in the link, but every time that I go to 'youtube' my browser quits/crashes. Every time!
Son says that I need a new comp. I think that I'll call the tech mech soon. Can't read pdf files, either, and other problems.
Sorry that I can't enjoy and comment on the link...
Any other possibilities?

I predict, based on my metaphysics, that a 'true vacuum' will never be perceived/found. 'Things' are perceived; that which we perceive are called 'things'.
A 'vacuum' is not a 'thing' but a complete lack thereof. Just as 'nothing' (other than as a word or a 'notion') cannot ever be shown to exist, because there is nothing to exist.
Every time something is thought to be a 'vacuum/nothing', advances in our means of examination/perception find more 'stuff', and as often as not, 'life'!!! Every time!
If it cannot be perceived, it cannot exist.
Perception = existence!

One more prediction;
There will be 'life' found on the sun, obviously not as we presently conceive it (or we would already have found it), but 'life' nontheless.

[gfellow]

Hi nameless,
Sorry your 'puter is giving you trouble. I hope you solve the problem before your computer turns into a brick.

Hi gfellow,

I predict, based on my metaphysics, that a 'true vacuum' will never be perceived/found. 'Things' are perceived; that which we perceive are called 'things'.

Quite reasonable. Similar to magnetic fields; it is the 'things' that interact with it which describe it. The actual field demonstrates no particle or wave in its own right.
So too with absolute vacuums. Whether they be momentary or sustained, it is the surrounding space that alerts us to its presence.

A 'vacuum' is not a 'thing' but a complete lack thereof. Just as 'nothing' (other than as a word or a 'notion') cannot ever be shown to exist, because there is nothing to exist.

I think my above comment applies here too...

Every time something is thought to be a 'vacuum/nothing', advances in our means of examination/perception find more 'stuff', and as often as not, 'life'!!! Every time!
If it cannot be perceived, it cannot exist.
Perception = existence!

It's about here that I regret you cannot see my video outline of my speculation. You can view an earlier paper I wrote on the subject here - it's a simple html page, so it ought to be easy to open.
In it I suggest that sustained absolute vacuums induce gravity, and I point to basic phenomena that appear to be doing this. I've not written about it yet, but your mention of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' may be noteworthy, in that these events may be viewed as discrete momentary void/non-space events that are evidenced by their impact upon space.

One more prediction;
There will be 'life' found on the sun, obviously not as we presently conceive it (or we would already have found it), but 'life' nontheless.

[/quote]
Not an outlandish concept. Plasma phenomena still defies Mankind's ability to behave according to our wishes. Might it be sentient life?
My own far-fetched speculation is that there may be life on Titan, operating in a super-cooled, super-conduction environment.

[nameless]

Whether they be momentary or sustained, it is the surrounding space that alerts us to its presence.

This is an unsupported (by evidence) hypothetical interpretation of 'appearances', with much in refutal against it.

Every time something is thought to be a 'vacuum/nothing', advances in our means of examination/perception find more 'stuff', and as often as not, 'life'!!! Every time!
If it cannot be perceived, it cannot exist.
Perception = existence!

It's about here that I regret you cannot see my video outline of my speculation. You can view an earlier paper I wrote on the subject here - it's a simple html page, so it ought to be easy to open.

I have perused it. Scientists don't even understand what gravity is, and have various hypotheses, none really advancing to good theory-hood, much less how to 'create' it.

Gravity;
I have such a simple and unrefutable (to date) theory of 'gravity' that Occam gave me his razor to be it's new Master! *__-

A few quick observations from your paper/site;

ABSTRACT
The Sun is inducing gravity without a corresponding quantity of mass.

I don't know how every ounce balances out, but from wiki, "the 'sun' by itself accounts for about 99.86% of the Solar System's mass; the remainder consists of the planets (including Earth), asteroids, meteoroids, comets, and dust in orbit.[9] About three-quarters of the Sun's mass consists of hydrogen, while most of the rest is helium. Less than 2% consists of other elements, including iron, oxygen, carbon, neon, and others.[10]
Of the 50 nearest stellar systems within 17 light-years from Earth, the Sun ranks 4th in mass.[19]"

Thats what wiki says, anyway, but astrophysics is not my area of expertise.

NON SPACE
Since this paper is chiefly concerned with the verification of gravitational induction, only a brief summarization of 'Non Space' will be presented here.
On a rudimentary level, non-space behavior can be compared to a vortex, which is a 'low energy' example of this phenomenon. Milk added to a stirred cup of coffee outlines a vortex, which consists of a high pressure exterior and a low pressure center. The vortex behaves in a manner identical to that of the planets orbiting the Sun, in that both phenomena obey Kepler's Second Law of Planetary Motion(1). Objects placed closer to the center of the vortex orbit at a greater speed than objects further out from the center, in accordance with Kepler's Laws. The depression in the center of the fluid is thus a relative absence of matter producing an effect mimicing gravity.

My sitting on an apple tree branch throwing apples at the ground (how else would they get there?) is also "producing an effect characteristic of gravity".
Would the same be true if I threw the apple in the opposite direction?
It is easy to be "producing an effect that is characteristic gravity" (to some degree), that is different than producing actual gravity.

No observable space in the universe is a vacuum.(2) It is notable that most dictionaries describe a vacuum as: " A space devoid of matter." This definition is no longer sufficient description of a vacuum, since it appears that all known space contains some measure of mass/energy. Perhaps a more accurate description would be: " A vacuum is a volume devoid of space."

Not possible to define that which does not exist; space defines volume, volume defines space. Space is the apparent relationship between volumes/things.

If the interior of a sunspot is closer to the Sun's supposedly active core, why does it get cooler and darker instead of hotter and brighter in these areas?

If we travel from sea level toward the hot sun, why do we get colder along the way, until we freeze, eventually.
Have you ever read James (I think) Churchward's Books of Mu ('The Science of Mu")? He says the sun is cold, and it's 'rays' are cold but the 'heat' that we feel is the rays' interaction with the earth's atmosphere.

In it I suggest that sustained absolute vacuums induce gravity, and I point to basic phenomena that appear to be doing this.

One can create simulations that mimic some effects of 'gravity', but like 'time', 'gravity' is a matter of Perspective; in the eye of the beholder. Gravity lives in certain 'thoughts' about 'appearances, nowhere else.

I've not written about it yet, but your mention of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' may be noteworthy,

Duuude, I've not mentioned either 'dark matter' or 'dark energy'. I don't need to offend Occam so badly in my ToE.

Let me illustrate;
Take a movie of an apple falling (being thrown) from a branch, finally settling on the ground.
Now, cut every frame apart from the others until there is a pile of frames on the table. This is how discrete quantized moments of time exist, all at once. We all, being Perspectives, look at these moments differently. Some have memories of other moments where the apple is a bit higher then another moment and another moment it appears lower. We, thoughtfully, tie this appearance together in thought and posit some means, some 'causal' (obsolete) 'reason' for the apple to appear to 'fall' to the earth.
Another Perspective will see what appears to be the a[[le 'falling' upwards to attach itself to the branch. He might hypothesize 'reasons' for such a behavior and might call it 'gravity'.
Other Perspectives perceive other perceptions and thoughts (memories) and watch the apple sitting motionless in mid-air. We hypothesize because we see what we see and a linear perception with memories implies 'reasons/causality'.
Gravity that is posited from 'motion' remains in the Perspective's thoughts.
Physicists Who Know That Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Is time an illusion? (no 'time'/no 'motion')
Impossibility of Time

No 'time' = no 'motion' = no 'gravity'
All are 'mirages', appearances in thought alone.
That is why studies of 'time' (and 'motion' and 'gravity') as an actuality, result in paradox, a sign of error.
They exist as mirages in thoughts.
A matter of Perspective.

[gfellow]

Whether they be momentary or sustained, it is the surrounding space that alerts us to its presence.

This is an unsupported (by evidence) hypothetical interpretation of 'appearances', with much in refutal against it.

Unsupported yes, but proposed. Did you get a chance to view my suggested plasma/gravity experiment?

Every time something is thought to be a 'vacuum/nothing', advances in our means of examination/perception find more 'stuff', and as often as not, 'life'!!! Every time!
If it cannot be perceived, it cannot exist.
Perception = existence!

It's about here that I regret you cannot see my video outline of my speculation. You can view an earlier paper I wrote on the subject here - it's a simple html page, so it ought to be easy to open.

I have perused it. Scientists don't even understand what gravity is, and have various hypotheses, none really advancing to good theory-hood, much less how to 'create' it.

Gravity;
I have such a simple and unrefutable (to date) theory of 'gravity' that Occam gave me his razor to be it's new Master! *__-

A few quick observations from your paper/site;

ABSTRACT
The Sun is inducing gravity without a corresponding quantity of mass.

I don't know how every ounce balances out, but from wiki, "the 'sun' by itself accounts for about 99.86% of the Solar System's mass; the remainder consists of the planets (including Earth), asteroids, meteoroids, comets, and dust in orbit.[9] About three-quarters of the Sun's mass consists of hydrogen, while most of the rest is helium. Less than 2% consists of other elements, including iron, oxygen, carbon, neon, and others.[10]
Of the 50 nearest stellar systems within 17 light-years from Earth, the Sun ranks 4th in mass.[19]"
Thats what wiki says, anyway, but astrophysics is not my area of expertise.

The Sun accounts for 99.86% of the solar system's gravity, not necessarily its mass. To date we have placed our faith in the hypothesis that mass and gravity are inviolate. I suggest to you that the search for data is woefully incomplete. We seem to have gathered that this unity is true for gasses, liquids, and solids. But plasmas? I believe the amount - 99.86% - is roughly the ratio of plasma to the other three elements in the Universe, and yet we know so little about the nature of high energy plasma. For example, no experiments with gravity measuring devices and z-pinch discharges have ever been attempted.

NON SPACE
Since this paper is chiefly concerned with the verification of gravitational induction, only a brief summerization of 'Non Space' will be presented here.
On a rudimentary level, non-space behavior can be compared to a vortex, which is a 'low energy' example of this phenomenon. Milk added to a stirred cup of coffee outlines a vortex, which consists of a high pressure exterior and a low pressure center. The vortex behaves in a manner identical to that of the planets orbiting the Sun, in that both phenomena obey Kepler's Second Law of Planetary Motion(1). Objects placed closer to the center of the vortex orbit at a greater speed than objects further out from the center, in accordance with Kepler's Laws. The depression in the center of the fluid is thus a relative absence of matter producing an effect mimicing gravity.

My sitting on an apple tree branch throwing apples at the ground (how else would they get there?) is also "producing an effect characteristic of gravity".
Would the same be true if I threw the apple in the opposite direction?
It is easy to be "producing an effect that is characteristic gravity" (to some degree), that is different than producing actual gravity.

At the point when the copy becomes a indistinguishable from the original, are they both not the same until proven otherwise?

No observable space in the universe is a vacuum.(2) It is notable that most dictionaries describe a vacuum as: " A space devoid of matter." This definition is no longer sufficient description of a vacuum, since it appears that all known space contains some measure of mass/energy. Perhaps a more accurate description would be: " A vacuum is a volume devoid of space."

Not possible to define that which does not exist; space defines volume, volume defines space. Space is the apparent relationship between volumes/things.

May I respectfully suggest that is an intuitive, but not necessarily accurate supposition? I believe it was Rabelais that stated "Nature abhors a vacuum" If the nature of space is to press in on a vacuum from all sides, does that very action not define the volume upon which it is pressing?
In a very real sense, I agree with your statement. In itself, a void/absolute vacuum is undefinable; it is the surrounding space that announces its (non?)presence.

If the interior of a sunspot is closer to the Sun's supposedly active core, why does it get cooler and darker instead of hotter and brighter in these areas?

If we travel from sea level toward the hot sun, why do we get colder along the way, until we freeze, eventually.
Have you ever read James (I think) Churchward's Books of Mu ('The Science of Mu")? He says the sun is cold, and it's 'rays' are cold but the 'heat' that we feel is the rays' interaction with the earth's atmosphere.

I believe that, in space, the side facing away from the sun freezes. The face directed towards the sun heats up, as evidenced by comets orbiting the Sun. We are dealing with heat transference when we go from radiative heating to convective heating.
However it occurs, there has to be a conservation of energy and if I am not mistaken, the Wikipedia page about the Sun addresses the problem of heat transference from a hot core through a 'cool' photosphere, into a hot corona, as one of the as-yet unsolved problems of solar propagation.

Thanks for the reference to Science of Mu - I'll hunt a copy down.

In it I suggest that sustained absolute vacuums induce gravity, and I point to basic phenomena that appear to be doing this.

One can create simulations that mimic some effects of 'gravity', but like 'time', 'gravity' is a matter of Perspective; in the eye of the beholder. Gravity lives in certain 'thoughts' about 'appearances, nowhere else.

I've not written about it yet, but your mention of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' may be noteworthy,
Duuude, I've not mentioned either 'dark matter' or 'dark energy'. I don't need to offend Occam so badly in my ToE.

I am so sorry, a 'senior moment' on my behalf. This was a conversation I had earlier on the forum on another thread. Something the respondent mentioned came to fruition while conversing with you, ashes and sack cloth!

Let me illustrate;
Take a movie of an apple falling (being thrown) from a branch, finally settling on the ground.
Now, cut every frame apart from the others until there is a pile of frames on the table. This is how discrete quantized moments of time exist, all at once. We all, being Perspectives, look at these moments differently. Some have memories of other moments where the apple is a bit higher then another moment and another moment it appears lower. We, thoughtfully, tie this appearance together in thought and posit some means, some 'causal' (obsolete) 'reason' for the apple to appear to 'fall' to the earth.
Another Perspective will see what appears to be the a[[le 'falling' upwards to attach itself to the branch. He might hypothesize 'reasons' for such a behavior and might call it 'gravity'.
Other Perspectives perceive other perceptions and thoughts (memories) and watch the apple sitting motionless in mid-air. We hypothesize because we see what we see and a linear perception with memories implies 'reasons/causality'.
Gravity that is posited from 'motion' remains in the Perspective's thoughts.
Physicists Who Know That Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Is time an illusion? (no 'time'/no 'motion')
Impossibility of Time

No 'time' = no 'motion' = no 'gravity'

Agreed. The void/absolute vacuum is - for want of a better phrase, a reverse singularity. Within it's boundary there is no time/motion/gravity - or for that matter, no volume. This non-space can only be described by the space imploding upon it.

All are 'mirages', appearances in thought alone.
That is why studies of 'time' (and 'motion' and 'gravity') as an actuality, result in paradox, a sign of error.
They exist as mirages in thoughts.
A matter of Perspective.

All experiments have to be performed within space, but it does not preclude that one cannot discern the impact upon space by non-space phenomenon.

[nameless]

At the point when the copy becomes a indistinguishable from the original, are they both not the same until proven otherwise?

Nope. Two distinct 'items' that look alike does not qualify them for 'the same'.
The 'same' thing can be in two places at the same moment, but that isn't what we are discussing. A hypothetically perfect copy of the 'Mona Lisa' would not be considered 'the same' by the auction house.

Not possible to define that which does not exist; space defines volume, volume defines space. Space is the apparent relationship between volumes/things.

May I respectfully suggest that is an intuitive, but not necessarily accurate supposition?

I can accept that, as long as there is the "not necessarily" moderator...
It might also, necessarily, be quite accurate. There are many physists who would also see it in that context. Though 'intuitive, my intuition is quite accurate and getting better all the time. 'Intuitive' is "not necessarily" a bad word.

I believe it was Rabelais that stated "Nature abhors a vacuum"

The French satirist wrote political satire such as the 'hilarious' book 'Gargantua and Pantagruel' (his mom). A scathing send-up of politicians...
I think that is was Baruch Spinoza's quote. Thats what 'wiki' says, anyway. I know that it wasn't me...
"Nature (seems to) abhors a vacuum" as there are none to/can be found.
But who knows what new devices for 'perceiving' will be developed in the next few centuries. I'll keep an eye out! *__-

If the nature of space is to press in on a vacuum from all sides,

Thats a huge 'if'!

does that very action not define the volume upon which it is pressing?

A 'volume' is a something, a 'vacuum' is not a something.
But 'if' your 'if' is valid, if, thebn your following statement could be reasonable.
I cannot accept it, though, for stated reasons.

In a very real sense, I agree with your statement. In itself, a void/absolute vacuum is undefinable; it is the surrounding space that announces its (non?)presence.

Everything/anything is defined by everything else, context. Ultimately the complete Universe is necessary for the complete definition of anything.
I see that your site is about 30 years old. I can wait to see if your hypotheses are validated by mainstream science. They'd just love to find a true vacuum, put one in the Smithsonian beside the 'dark matter' and FSM!

Physicists Who Know That Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Is time an illusion? (no 'time'/no 'motion')
Impossibility of Time

No 'time' = no 'motion' = no 'gravity'

Agreed. The void/absolute vacuum is - for want of a better phrase, a reverse singularity. Within it's boundary there is no time/motion/gravity - or for that matter, no volume. This non-space can only be described by the space imploding upon it.

Interesting hypothesis. We'll just have to wait to see if it is ever validated by perception/existence. We can perceive the iron filings all aquiver in a certain pattern, but id the magnet is not perceived, it doesn't exist. It might 'exist' as a notion or concept or hypothesis, but it has no existence itself unless 'perceived' directly. We can as well hypothesize invisible nano-martians moving the iron filings, formulate all sorts of tests and experiments, even gedanken, but until and unless perceived directly, no existence.

All are 'mirages', appearances in thought alone.
That is why studies of 'time' (and 'motion' and 'gravity') as an actuality, result in paradox, a sign of error.
They exist as mirages in thoughts.
A matter of Perspective.

All experiments have to be performed within space, but it does not preclude that one cannot discern the impact upon space by non-space phenomenon.

I'm willing to wait for your hypothesis to be either verified or refuted by 'perception', one way or another.
My prediction is that a 'true' vacuum will never be found, directly, as one cannot exist.

I feel that we have both stated our cases, and frankly, I would really be tickled to have this huge house of cards that I have built go swirling off into (and thus instantly destroying) your new-found true vacuum! The very moment 'found' would be the very moment annihilated! Rather like opposite Perspectives annihilating themselves the moment of manifestation, which is why all of existence ever exists for just one Planck moment!
All done here?
peace