 ether in some direction, light should have different speeds in different directions. However in 1887 Michelson and Morley found that the speed of light was the same in every direction, so there could not be a physical ether. Then Einstein showed logically that the speed of light, not the ether, was the real absolute. This left space, the medium of light, as "nothing". Some say the speed of light defines the elasticity of space, but this argues backwards, that a wave defines its medium, when really the medium must define the wave, i.e. the speed of light should conclude the argument not begin it. The nature of space should define the rate of transmission through it, but how can an empty space devoid of physical properties transmit light and limit its speed? The object context paradox An argument that physical objects need a non-physical context is as follows: 1. A world containing an inherent object must also contain something that is "not-thatobject", as a boundary context. 4 From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AetherWind.svg Figure 2. Luminiferous ether 4 Brian Whitworth Quantum Biosystems 2010, 2 (1) 221-249 237 2. Unless objects entirely fill the world, the set of all objects implies a "not-any-object" context (space). 3. If space is "nothing at all", the world consists only of objects, so has no basis for movement. 4. If space exists in the world as an object, by the previous logic it also needs a context, which logic circle continues indefinitely. For example, fish are physical objects that exist in an ocean. If the ocean is also a physical, it too needs boundary context to surround it, say land or air. If the land is also physical, it too needs a context, and so on. This circularity, of physical objects requiring physical contexts, has to stop somewhere, and in this model space is it. Yet if space exists, it can't do so as the physical objects it contains do. Empty space exists The ether error was to assume that everything must exist as physical objects do, so objects must exist in space as a fish exists in water. A physical ether isn't justified by experimental science, or by logic, as an object cannot be an ultimate context. Equally space as nothing at all contradicts much modern physics, and a world entirely of objects has no logical base for movement. The inescapable conclusion is that empty space exists but not as physical objects do,
ether in some direction, light should have different speed in unlike directions. However in 1887 Michelson and Morley found that the focal ratio of sparkle was the same in every direction, so there could not be a forcible ether. Then Einstein showed logically that the speed of luminosity, not the ether, was the real absolute. This leftover space, the medium of light, as " nothing ". Some say the focal ratio of light defines the elasticity of space, but this argues backwards, that a wave specify its medium, when really the medium must specify the wave, i.e. the speed of light should conclude the argument not get down it. The nature of space should specify the rate of transmission through it, but how can an empty space barren of physical properties transmit light and limit its speed? The object context paradox An controversy that physical objects need a non - physical context is as follows: 1. A world containing an inherent object must also incorporate something that is " not - thatobject ", as a boundary context. 4 From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AetherWind.svg Figure 2. Luminiferous ether 4 Brian Whitworth Quantum Biosystems 2010, 2 (1) 221 - 249 237 2. Unless objects entirely satiate the populace, the set of all objects implies a " not - any - aim " context (space). 3. If quad is " nothing at all ", the world consist only of objects, so has no basis for movement. 4. If distance exists in the world as an object, by the previous logic it besides needs a context, which logic r-2 continue indefinitely. For example, fish are physical object that exist in an ocean. If the ocean is also a physical, it too needs boundary context to surround it, say land or air. If the estate is also forcible, it too needs a context, and so on. This circularity, of physical object requiring forcible contexts, has to check somewhere, and in this model space is it. Yet if quad exist, it can't do so as the physical objects it contains do. Empty space exists The ether error was to bear that everything must exist as physical objects dress, so objects must exist in space as a pisces exists in water. A physical quintessence isn't justified by experimental science, or by logic, as an object cannot be an ultimate context. Equally space as nothing at all contradicts much modern physics, and a world wholly of objects has no logical base for movement. The inescapable conclusion is that empty space exist but not as physical objects do,
 etjer in some direction, linht should have buffereit speess in diwferent directions. However ii 1887 Muchelwon and Morley found tfat the sieed of lught qas the same in evcxy didcctiou, wo there could not be a [hysical ether. Tfeu Einstein showed logically that the speed pf light, not the ethtr, ras fhe real absolute. This left space, fhe medpum of light, as "npthing". Some say the speed lf llght defines the epasticity od spwxe, but this xrgues backwards, that z wave defines its medium, when feallv the mediun nush define the wave, i.e. the speed of ligvt shoukd conclude thc argnmenr not begin it. The navure of space should define tve rate of transmiswiin thtough it, cyt fow cen zn emphy apace devojd of physixal properties tranxmyn light and ljmit ies speed? The object context paradox An arcumsnt that physical objecrs need a non-physical context ys as follows: 1. A world containing an inherent objact mnsg aosj xojtain something that is "not-thatobject", as a bothdsrj context. 4 From Wlkipedia http://en.wikopfdow.org/wiki/File:AgtherWius.sbg Figure 2. Luminiffrous ejher 4 Vrian Whiuwortn Quantum Biosystems 2010, 2 (1) 221-249 237 2. Ynless objecns ebtirely fill the wlrld, the sec of akl obkects implies a "not-any-oyject" dontext (spafe). 3. If spzze is "nothing at alk", dhe world consists only of objects, wo hcs no baris gor modement. 4. If spacc exists in the worpd as at object, bj the previous logic it also nexvs a context, ehhch logic cnrcle gontinues indefynitely. For excmple, fifh ard physical objectv that exise in an ocean. Lf the ocean is also a pyysixal, it guo needs boundsry conteqt to wurround it, say lakd or zir. If the land is also physical, ot goo nvedx w context, and so un. Gnis ckrcularity, iw phusical objects requising physical contexts, hws to stip somewrere, and in tnis model space is it. Yxt if rpace exysts, it can't do so as the physjcal objefts it contains do. Cmpti space exixts The ether error was to assume that xverything must exist aw physical objects bo, so objects must exist in space as a fish exiwts in water. A phnsical ether isn't justjfied ty exoerimental science, or by logic, as an object cannot be an ultimate context. Equally space as hothong an ajk contwadirtr much modern phjsics, and a world entirely of oboects has to logical base for movement. Tne inescapable zonclusion is that empty space ecists but not as physical objecys do,
ether in some direction, light should have in directions. However 1887 Michelson and of was the same every direction, so could not be a physical ether. Einstein showed logically that the speed of light, not the ether, was the absolute. This left space, the medium of light, as "nothing". Some say the of defines elasticity space, but this argues backwards, that a wave defines its medium, when really the medium must the wave, i.e. the speed of light should the argument not begin The nature of space should the of transmission it, how an empty space of physical properties transmit light and limit its speed? The object context paradox An argument that physical need a is as 1. world an inherent object contain something that is "not-thatobject", as 4 From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AetherWind.svg Figure 2. Luminiferous ether Brian Whitworth Biosystems 2010, 2 (1) 221-249 237 Unless objects entirely fill the world, the set all objects implies a "not-any-object" context (space). 3. If space is "nothing at all", the only of objects, so no basis for 4. space in world as object, by the previous logic it also needs a context, which circle continues indefinitely. For example, fish are physical objects that an If the ocean also a physical, it needs context to surround it, or If also it needs a context, and on. This circularity, of physical requiring physical contexts, has this model space is it. Yet if space it can't do so as the physical it contains do. Empty space exists The ether error was to assume everything must physical objects do, so objects must exist in as a fish exists water. A physical ether isn't justified by experimental science, by as an cannot be an context. Equally space nothing at all modern physics, a entirely no logical base for movement. The conclusion that empty space exists but as do,
 ether in some direction, light Should have DiffeRenT spEeDs in DiffErent directionS. howeVer in 1887 Michelson and MorleY founD tHAt thE SpEed of Light waS ThE SAme In EvEry DiREcTion, sO thEre coulD not be a phySicAl Ether. Then EinSTeIn showed loGicAlly that the sPeeD of ligHt, Not THe ethEr, wAs the Real abSOlute. THis left spAcE, The medIUm of ligHT, As "NothIng". Some say the speeD Of LIght defines the ElastiCiTY oF SPacE, buT this argueS bAckwaRDs, that a WAvE DEFinES its medium, wheN really the mEDiuM must dEfIne THe wave, I.e. the SpEEd oF light shoulD conClude the aRgumenT Not begiN It. The naTure of SpaCe sHoulD DeFiNe tHe RAte OF tRanSMisSion throUgH iT, but hOw caN AN EMpty SpaCe deVoid oF physical propErtIes tRAnsMit liGht anD limIt Its spEed? The ObjecT cOntext paradox An ArguMent that pHysIcAl oBjEcts nEEd a non-PhySicAl conteXt is as fOLloWs: 1. a WORlD containing an inherEnT OBjEct must aLso conTAiN sOMething tHaT is "Not-tHATobjeCt", as A BoUndary coNtext. 4 FROm wiKipedia HtTp://en.wiKiPedIa.oRg/wikI/file:aetherwind.svg FIgure 2. lUminiferous ethER 4 Brian WhitworTH QUANtUM BioSysTems 2010, 2 (1) 221-249 237 2. Unless oBjecTS entIrelY FiLl tHE worlD, the sEt OF aLL objects implies a "not-AnY-objecT" contExt (space). 3. If spaCe is "nothinG AT All", the woRld cONsISts only of objecTs, so hAs no basis fOR movemenT. 4. If spAce existS in the worLD As an objeCt, bY thE prEviOUS lOgic it also neeDS A conTeXt, which LogIc circlE coNtiNueS inDeFinitely. FOr examplE, fIsH aRe PhySical OBjects thAt ExiSt In aN oceaN. if the oCean iS alsO a PhYSicAl, it too NEeDS BounDaRy ContExt To SurroUnd iT, Say Land or aIr. If the laNd iS Also PhYsIcal, it tOo needs a conteXt, And so on. ThiS cIrcUlaritY, OF physicaL objects requiring physicAL contexTs, hAs to sTop sOmewhere, aNd iN this mOdeL Space iS it. Yet If spaCe ExiSTS, it caN'T Do So aS tHe physical OBJecTs it cOnTainS do. EmptY space exists The ethER erRor was to assumE thAt evERYtHinG MuST exIsT As pHYSical objects do, sO objects muSt EXiSt in space aS A fiSh Exists iN water. A PhysiCAl ether Isn't justiFied by expErImenTAL scIence, or by lOgic, as an Object canNOt be aN UlTimatE coNtext. EQuAllY spacE as notHIng At all ContraDiCts mucH modeRn Physics, aNd a world entirely of objecTs has nO logiCal Base for moVemENt. THe inescapAble Conclusion Is tHat Empty SpaCE exisTs buT NoT as PHysicAl obJEcts do,
 ether in some direction,light shou ld ha vedif fe rent  spe eds in differe n t di rections. However in 1 887 M ic h elso n  a nd Mo rley fo u nd t hat  t he  sp ee d  o f lig htwas the  same in e ver ydirection, s o  t here could  no t be a physi cal  ether .The n  Eins tei n sho wed lo g ically  that the  s p eed of light,n o ttheether, was the re a la bsolute. Thisleft s pa c e, t hemed ium of lig ht , as" nothing " .S o m e s a y the speed o f light def i nes  the e la sti c ity of  spac e, but  this argue s ba ckwards,that a wave de f ines it s medi um,  wh en r e al ly  th em edi u mmus t  de fine the  w av e, i. e. t h e s peed  of  lig ht sh ould conclude  th e ar g ume nt no t beg in i t.  Thenature  of s pa ce should defin e th e rate of  tr an smi ss ion t h roughit,  bu t how c an an e m pty  s p a c edevoid of physical  p r o pe rties tr ansmit li gh t  and lim it  it s sp e e d? Th e ob j ec t contex t para d ox  A n argum en t that  p hys ica l obj e ctsneed a  non-phy sical context is asf ollows: 1. Aw or l d  c o ntai nin g an inhere nt o b ject  mus t  a lso conta in so me t hi n g that is "not-that ob ject",  as a  boundary con text. 4 Fr o m Wikipedi a ht t p: / /en.wikipedia. org/w iki/File:A e therWind .svgFigure 2 . Luminif e r ous ethe r 4  Br ian  Wh i t wo rth Quantum B i o syst em s 2010,  2(1) 221 -24 9 2 372.Un less obje cts enti re ly  f il l t he wo r ld, these t o fall  obje c ts imp liesa "n ot -a n y-o bject"c on t e xt ( sp ac e).3.If  spac e is "no thing a t all", t hew orld  c on sists o nly of object s,  so has no  b asi s form o vement.4. If space exists in t h e world  as  an o bjec t, by the  pr evious  lo g ic italso n eedsacon t e xt, w h i ch  lo gi c circle c o n tin ues i nd efin itely.For example, fisha rephysical obje cts  tha t ex ist in anoc e an. I f the ocean isalso a phy si c al , it too n e eds  b oundary  contex t tos urround  it, sayland or a ir . If t heland is al so physi cal, it t o o nee d sa con tex t, and  s o o n. Th is cir c ula rity,  of ph ys ical o bject srequirin g physical contexts, ha s to s top s ome where, an d i n  th is modelspac e is it. Y etifspace  ex i sts,it c a n' t d o  so a s th e  physical ob jec t s  i t containsd o .  Em pty s pac e  exist s Th e ether error was to assume that  eve r y thi ngm ustex ist as physica l o bj e c ts do, s oobjects mus t existin space  as afish e xists i n wa t er. Aphys ica l ether i sn' tj ustifie dby experi ment al  scien ce, or by l o g ic, as an object  cann o t  be a n  ul timat econtext .  Equ ally space  as nothing  at al l co ntrad icts mu ch  moder n p hy sics, anda  world en tirel y of ob je ctshas  no lo gica l baseformo vem ent. Thei n es c ap ab l e c oncl usion  i s th at emptys pace exi sts but not  a s p h y sicalo bj e c ts do,
 ether_in some_direction, light should have_different speeds_in_different directions._However_in 1887 Michelson_and Morley found_that the speed of_light was the_same_in every direction, so there could not be a physical ether. Then Einstein showed_logically_that the_speed_of_light, not the ether, was_the real absolute. This left_space, the_medium of light, as "nothing". Some say the_speed_of light defines_the elasticity of space, but this argues backwards, that_a wave defines its medium, when_really the medium_must_define_the wave, i.e. the_speed of light should conclude the_argument not begin it. The nature_of space should define the rate of_transmission through it, but how can_an empty space devoid of_physical properties_transmit light and limit its_speed? The object_context paradox_An argument that_physical objects need a non-physical context_is as follows:_1. A world containing an inherent_object_must also contain_something_that_is "not-thatobject",_as a boundary_context._4 From_Wikipedia_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AetherWind.svg Figure 2. Luminiferous ether 4_Brian_Whitworth Quantum Biosystems 2010, 2 (1) 221-249_237 2. Unless objects_entirely_fill the world, the_set of all objects implies_a "not-any-object" context (space). 3. If_space is_"nothing at_all", the world consists only of objects, so has no basis_for movement. 4. If space exists_in the world as_an object,_by_the previous logic_it_also needs_a context, which logic circle continues indefinitely._For example,_fish are physical objects that exist_in an ocean. If_the_ocean is also a physical, it_too needs boundary context to surround_it, say land or air._If_the_land is also physical, it_too needs a context, and so_on. This circularity,_of physical objects requiring physical contexts, has_to_stop somewhere, and in this model_space_is it. Yet if space exists,_it_can't_do so as the physical_objects it contains do. Empty space_exists The ether error was to assume that everything_must exist as_physical objects do, so objects_must_exist_in space as a fish exists in water. A physical_ether isn't_justified by experimental_science, or by logic, as an object cannot be an_ultimate context. Equally space as nothing at_all contradicts much modern physics, and a world entirely of objects_has no logical base for movement. The inescapable_conclusion is that empty space exists but_not as physical objects_do,