My argument is independent of that erroneous thought. But for you to use it as contradiction, you really need to be able to prove what you just claimed. I, very seriously, doubt that you can do that (although it still wouldn’t be relevant to my OP argument).
Right, I will take my microscope, scoop up every bit of stardust in the universe, and then you’ll say “But maybe you missed a spot.”
I’m afraid that I am going to have to agree with Phyllo on this;
I am so hurt James. With this post, you have elevated your piles of crap above mine, and will forever be known as a living legend, sounded in the halls of ilpturds.com, for aeons.
With this post, you have single-handedly doomed me to a life of obscurity, and mediocrity, for many years. Well played sir, well played.
I think that you need to define what you mean by nothingness.
Do you believe that empty space is nothingness?
I personally believe that space is full and matter is empty.
The universe is apparently 4% matter and 96% emptiness or space.
If E=MC squared, then emptiness and space are made of the same stuff.
I would call this stuff aether.
…the complete lack of any form of substance or differentiation, 100% homogeneity.
I know that it isn’t. That’s the whole point to the OP.
Unless you have a strange definition of “empty”, matter cannot be empty.
It is around 4% highly concentrated affectance and 96% very lowly concentrated affectance.
That’s true.
I call it Affectance. Aether was defined much earlier and in very slightly the wrong way. Due to that misunderstanding of what it had to be, Science turned against the existence of it completely. The Aether theory was actually very close to being exactly right … except they mis-defined what aether is.
On the other hand, there is no alternative to the existence of Affectance.
Affectance is what “aether” was supposed to be.
How do you know that nothingness is %100 homogeneous?
If matter isn’t empty, then , why is space trying its hardest to get into it (gravity)?
You have just added another name to aether. I will have to add it to my growing list. Dark matter, dark energy, virtual photon, Higgs boson, up quark, down quark, space time continuum, strange quarks, charm quarks, muons, neutrinos, tauon, bottom quark, top quark, weakons, Klingons and now introducing the ‘affectance’.
Aether is like soap powder.People keep repackaging it with hyperbole and dubious science.
That seems like kind of a silly question. If there was any variation, that variation wouldn’t be “nothing”.
I could understand you asking why other mass is “trying to get into matter”, but what makes you think that space is trying to “get into matter”?
No. I have named what is actually there. The word “Aether” is not referring to the same thing that I am talking about. Affectance is much like what they defined as aether, but they are not actually the same thing. I didn’t call it aether for a reason. When they defined aether, they made a mistake … the same mistake that your buddy Robert Distinti is making. Affectance is NOT a “medium” that objects float through.
So, are you saying that empty space has nothing in it?
Space is pushing you down towards the centre of the Earth, that’s why. Nature can only push, it can’t pull. Pulling is a 17th century concept which was derived from the horse and buggy era. It was thought that the horse was pulling the buggy but alas, the horse is pushing the buggy, not pulling it.
Ah, ha. So affectance is a new improved form of aether. Does it get out all those stubborn stains that ordinary aethers can’t? 
Enough humour; what about cause and effect? Is affectance an effect without the cause? If so; then, what what causes affectance?
Robert Distiniti has more than 50 videos. I imagine that you couldn’t have seen all of them in such a short period of time so you might have been a little rash in jumping to any conclusions so quickly. I would advise you to see all his videos and maybe watch some several times so the concepts are better understood. Note - Spinning objects tend to attract without gravity or magnetism.
Please explain how you believe light travels.
I am saying that there is no such thing as absolutely empty space.
Affectance is eternal. It is impossible for affectance to NOT exist in all places at all times throughout eternity. That is what the OP is proving. So there could never have been a “before affectance came along” moment.
I was merely taking his word in the few that I did watch. I am not going to watch 50 vids when the man has already made very relevant fundamental errors in merely the first couple.
If he was here, I would debate why his reasoning was bad, but as it is, he cannot defend himself. If you want to try to defend his notions, go ahead.
I see no reason to believe that.
On an appropriate thread.
If it wasn’t for absolute empty space matter wouldn’t exist. The electrons and protons need something to fall into (entrapment).
.
Are you sure this ‘affectance’ isn’t some kind of a religious idea? If you replace ‘affectance’ with the word God, then, everything you are saying sounds like some religious fanatic ranting on. “God is eternal” etc
In other words - I am going to close my eyes and pretend that this electronic genius doesn’t exist because he has turned my little affectance world upside down with logic and common sense and made me look puerile and silly.
Again, merely an assertion with no reason to believe it. Who besides you ever said that electrons need something to fall into?
So now if anyone uses the word “eternal” they are referring to religion? 
… very limited mindset.
Now he’s a “genius”?
Obviously you can’t defend any of your own speculations and certainly not his.
This is a philosophy (display your reasoning) forum, not a soapbox preaching pulpit.
Thought it was.
The logic is rope and string theory. If you spin an object, it wraps the string around, like a spool. This pulls in other objects, like a tractor beam.
Seems like a silly speculation. Even Hawking gave up on his string theory.
Is there any evidence that spinning particles attract each other when non-spinning similar particles do not?
No, but I never said I believed in string theory.
Of course you realize that mathematics in itself cannot definitely prove the existence of a physical property that cannot be demonstrated experimentally. At best, it can provide indirect evidence (as in string theory).
I would tend to agree with your statement, but I won’t try and say that I can prove it (I can’t, and neither can anyone else). But then, quantum physics essentially reaches (perhaps even requires) the same conclusion (for reasons that are better established than anything string theory has yet to offer). But even a quantum physicist won’t try and say they can prove a principle like this … quite frankly, I’m not really sure how something like this can ever be established experimentally (although, since we also lack a crystal ball, we can never say never) 
Empirical evidence without reasoning/logic/math proves that magicians really do pull rabbits from hats, the Earth is flat, Helios raises the Sun, speeds can be faster than light, and liberals are good people.
Mathematics is merely logic applied to quantities. Logic is merely careful examination of concept definitions. Definitions are merely explanations for wording. Wording is merely an effort to communicate. And communication is merely another form of sensing some aspect of reality. Any and all efforts to sense reality can be in error, but logic can cross check and verify empirical sensing and communication.
Without logic, there is no such thing as proof or validity.
Agreed, we need “both” … but the thing is about going down the rabbit hole with pure mathematics (and no evidentiary support) is one tiny error, one wrong assumption, and you wind up taking a turn that puts you way off course.
I don’t dislike math (I’ve taken plenty in my academic studies), I just think it has limitations; especially when dealing with a subject like ‘is nothingness possible’ or infinite space or whatever.
The real reason for the “both” is that one has a brain and senses, thus that one has a logical theory and an empirical praxis in life as well as in science.
So we need not only thoughts, mathematics, logic, and a well defined language but also the observation, laboratories and other empircal things.