The conclusion may be that matter is almost entirely empty space, but you still have to let your interactions with the way you get information about physics use the ancient habit of assuming that what seems to be solid is solid.
I think you may misunderstand what the physics actually says. Compared to the material of neutron stars, yes, terrestrial matter is almost entirely empty space … but it’s still resists changes to shape and volume. And you don’t need to invoke ancient habits anywhere—those conclusions fall right out of the physics without modification.
I’ve beginning to think that I’ve been over-influenced by “goshwow” popular physics, which tries to present physics in the most surpising way poosible. It’s different if I think of that “empty space” near subatomic particles as puffed up by energy fields.
What do you mean?
The conclusion may be that matter is almost entirely empty space, but you still have to let your interactions with the way you get information about physics use the ancient habit of assuming that what seems to be solid is solid.
I think you may misunderstand what the physics actually says. Compared to the material of neutron stars, yes, terrestrial matter is almost entirely empty space … but it’s still resists changes to shape and volume. And you don’t need to invoke ancient habits anywhere—those conclusions fall right out of the physics without modification.
I’ve beginning to think that I’ve been over-influenced by “goshwow” popular physics, which tries to present physics in the most surpising way poosible. It’s different if I think of that “empty space” near subatomic particles as puffed up by energy fields.