Happy Atheist Forum

This is not an important question! But it's been on my mind. I wasn't sure whether to put it in science or philosophy. I figured philosophy was more appropriate.

Suppose I was able to make a complete vacuum inside some kind of container, lets say a bottle. If I move the bottle around, the bottle is obviously moving. But the bottle contains a vacuum, i.e. nothing. So is the nothing inside the bottle moving? Can nothing move? Right now I think no. I think only an existent thing can move. But then I think, in this case does the nothing exist? It does seem to have a location, a volume and perhaps even a velocity as I shake the bottle, if not a mass or an energy.

Well of course a vacuum can move, silly.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages47.fotki.com%2Fv1473%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2Froomba-vi.gif&hash=aa47792ed865f1698d988fe854460880b59cd149)
Ctrl-Refresh to restart. Mouseover doesn't work. Stupid vacuum.

In your 1725 posts, have you ever repeated the same animated gif twice?

When you move the bottle, the plastic sides push all the air out of the way, so the space the bottle occupies will now be free of air ( the other sides of the bottle prevent air moving into the space ). The bottle excludes the air from the space it occupies, so wherever the bottle is, it creates a vacuum.
Or at least, thats how I would think of it.

A bottle with a vacume inside reacts to the world the same as say a bottle with beer inside (mmmm beer). It's kind of th opposite but the bootle effectivly makes the substance or lack of substance independent from it's invirnement. Heck when you get right down to it there is far more space or empty area in matter then atoms so moving anything could "technicaly" almost  be called moving a near vacume around anyway.

Quote from: "AlP"In your 1725 posts, have you ever repeated the same animated gif twice?

A couple times, and I feel dirty when it happens.  

Many thanks for the useful replies people. For now I think a vacuum does not move. Now does it exist?

Can a hole move?

Quote from: "Nulono"Can a hole move?

Sure.  Don't you watch cartoons?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giantbomb.com%2Fuploads%2F0%2F5768%2F679610-hole_large.jpg&hash=8671bf0cf7fe1f97de9647a7171f789d11f891a3)

Is it cold in here, or is there just a lack of heat?
JoeActor

Quote from: "Nulono"Can a hole move?

I would say no not really. It's fine to talk about a moving hole. People will understand what you mean. But the hole is a concept rather than an existent thing. It's the thing the hole is in and the thing the hole is filled with (if anything) that exist. They can move. In fact they almost certainly are moving relative to something else.

I find the vacuum a little vexing because I can't tell if it exists. I can't break it down into simpler existent things. Because there's nothing there. I'm beginning to think this existence concept is flawed or incomplete.

Through language we define the vacuum and give it a name. In the case above, the vacuum is limited to the interior of the bottle. As the bottle moves, the boundaries of the vacuum move. As there is no substance actually inside the bottle surely "nothing" can not have any properties, or be capable of any action. But the boundaries of 'nothing' can.


JoeActor-
I was also reminded of heat. Heat and cold are both definitions of states. With heat, molecules are moving, and in 'cold' molecules are moving slower (or not at all) This is like the notion that "cold" does not exist because it is merely the absence of something. But really, it all depends on how you use the language.

Quote from: "BadPoison"JoeActor-
I was also reminded of heat. Heat and cold are both definitions of states. With heat, molecules are moving, and in 'cold' molecules are moving slower (or not at all) This is like the notion that "cold" does not exist because it is merely the absence of something. But really, it all depends on how you use the language.

Yeah, that always bugged me about the heat/cold thing.

After all, if you have a hole in a table, or a vacuume in a bottle, you still need a way to refer to the, uh... lack of something else!  (ok, I just confused myself)

It is a matter of language and perspective, IMHO.

I used to watch a science guy on TV named Julius Sumner Miller (he's fantastic!).  One of my fave phrases he used was:

"I have in my hand an empty beaker... No!  No!  It's full of air!"

Google him - watch and be awed,
JoeActor

In relation to what?  The earth is constantly moving, as is our solar system.

I meant in relation to anything. Is seemed that if in a vacuum there is nothing, what would move?

But it turns out that there are things in vacuums. I'm still researching this but apparently things called virtual particles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle) spontaneously materialize all over the place as matter / antimatter pairs (by borrowing energy from the future in one account!) and then quickly vanish. Presumably they move. I still haven't figured out if these things are real or if they're just concepts used to balance physics equations or something.