Jim Nibblett asks the above question and quotes TSW (p. 187) as:
"Only in the idealist's finite universe surrounded by "empty space" and governed by separability, does motion without matter escape into the void, never to return. Thus separated from its motion, the matter in this imagined universe reaches a perfect, final equilibrium in which its various parts attain a state of eternal rest."
And writes:
"So we agree completely. To me it's all about control volumes. You can make them as big as you like. I like 2GM/R if I remember right. Put up a control volume that size and position it such that we're at the middle of it. One then can say those magical words "assuming equilibrium conditions exist" and Poof! just as much stuff escapes from the control volume as falls into it. All done, case closed."
Jim, you have to realize that my “control volume” is infinite. Any actual number would imply, instead, that the universe was finite. It is the kind of thing one would do if one believed that the galactic redshift actually was evidence for universal expansion. It is not. It simply is evidence for absorption over distance within the ether. Even the Doppler interpretation requires a medium. In my idea of an infinite universe, “equilibrium conditions” never really exist. All portions of the infinite universe are in motion with respect to all other portions of the universe. That is the nature of the motion of matter. On the other hand, your “control volume” idea, with input and output being identical, is compatible with my paper on the “Resolution of the SLT-Order Paradox” available for free download at: (http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/SLTOrder.pdf). The convergence of matter in one place theoretically is equivalent to the divergence of matter in another place. So again, we agree, except that I don’t see much value in doing math on that which is infinite.
Macrocosmic infinity implies microcosmic infinity. All things have an infinite number of things inside them as well as an infinite number of things outside them. Infinity, then, is an endless begging of the question. This is why we will never find out what “matter” really is. Matter always consists of other matter in motion. You get the same answer no matter how much subdividing you do. There are no partless parts. When you think about it, this is the only way the universe could be—an endless passing of the buck. This view implies that “pure empty space” is only an idea, and thus cannot exist, just as “pure solid matter” is only an idea, and thus cannot exist. So you can see why I don’t believe in all the idealistic speculation involving an expanding and contracting universe. The proposed multiverses and parallel universes are even worse ways of shirking INFINITY simply to comply with the erroneous assumptions of the conventional view. They don’t even follow the standard definition of the universe as “all that exists.”