What IS space?

[coldcreation]

The only thing boring around here are the short posts with little to say.

 

On the concept that space is energy, by Sergey500. This concept is as old as it is untenable. Space is space, energy is energy, entropy is entropy, time is time, etc. If space were energy we would simply call it energy and not space.

 

Yes Sergey, there is a minimum amount of energy located in space called ground-state energy or zero point energy, ZPE, and it fluctuates, ZPF.

 

Space is a 3-dimensional surface within which energy and people circulate. Just as on the surface of the ocean there are boat and waves. You wouldn't say that the surface of the ocean is energy, now would you?

 

I say the concept is old because it has been thought for some time now that the cosmological constant (space by definition) is a type of energy, hitherto undetected, dark and powerful at great distances or scales, more so even than gravity (which is a weak force, or curvature, but shapes the universe at large-length scales).

 

Please do not edit what follows: I'll keep it short.

 

It may come as a bombshell that from the present analysis Coldcreation draws this unambiguous conclusion: The cosmological constant (empty space) is the mediator that determines and regulates equilibrium processes between all bodies. Matter and field are separated and connected by points, zones and expanses of empty space — the attributes of which possess the physical properties necessary for the existence of all 'things.' Without this vital asset, quarks, electrons, protons, neutrons, molecules, planets, stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, super-clusters and the universe in its entirety, would collapse or expand, disperse: there would be no physical laws of nature, no universal constants and no universe — at least not one that resembles in the slightest the universe that we inhabit. All matter would be packed into one gargantuan solid mass, waiting inexorably for something to come along, a quantum fluctuation perhaps, and set it free.

 

Or, the universe would simply be an expanse of empty space and time, a kind of static de Sitter universe, where nothing would ever change, where nothing would ever convene, assemble or organize itself to form anything larger than a fundamental particle, let alone the nebulous islands of spiral elliptical and spherical configurations that populate the entire cosmos at the present time.

 

It may come also as no shocker that certain characteristic physical properties of empty space (or, as empty as space can possibly be) in relation to matter, energy and field has been overlooked for so many centuries; in view of the fact that we cannot directly see empty space or the complex configuration of the field. We can only make deductions and interpretations based on the information available to us through observation — the accurate analysis and bold conclusions of which should be based on the laws of nature extracted from experiment and experience, both intuitive and non-intuitive — not founded on whimsical speculation, spurious assumptions, artificial initial conditions and erroneous interpretations — a vantage-point from which even Star Trek buffs and other science-fiction aficionado would unremorsefully dismiss as bogus.

 

Coldcreation

 

PS. I hope your query Sergey has been answered — space is not energy — and that now we may move onto something just as interesting as space: that which fills space...

[infamous]

Never said that energy is space. My statement was, "Energy creates space".

 

It's also a matter of opinion who really has anything to say. Everyone is welcome to voice their views and just because some consider themselves to be experts doesn't give them the right to minimize the importance of anyones comments.

[coldcreation]

Never said that energy is space. My statement was, "Energy creates space".

 

It's also a matter of opinion who really has anything to say. Everyone is welcome to voice their views and just because some consider themselves to be experts doesn't give them the right to minimize the importance of anyones comments.

 

It was Sergey500 that wrote 'space is energy' not you Infy.

Why, Infy, would space be created by energy? That to me sounds just as strange as saying that matter creates space. Or likewise, that a fish creates water. Your logic, Infy, sounds anthropic.

 

Even if you were correct in your 'less is more' statement, you still do not say what has been created by energy, i.e., you fail to answer the only question set out in this thread: What IS Space?

[EWright]

There are some good points in this thread. Some of you are very close. I'll answer your questions soon... say end of Decemberish.

[infamous]

Why, Infy, would space be created by energy?

Are you suggesting that space is absolute nothingness, that space would exist whether or not energy was present to structure it's dimensionality? If so, this thought has also crossed my mind on several occasions. But having said that I must remind you that the standard model does not view space in this way. Do you have evidence that space can exist as nothingness?

 

 

 

 

Even if you were correct in your 'less is more' statement,

Less is more if the membership becomes so overwhelmed with a volume of material they would just as soon not waist their time on. Not to mention the constant repetition of formerly stated opinions. And this statement is directed more so at Puff than yourself Cold. Both you fellows are very intelligent but neither of you will have any success getting your ideas across by posting these very long and boring posts.

 

 

you still do not say what has been created by energy, i.e., you fail to answer the only question set out in this thread: What IS Space?

As you already know, I'm not really very fond of the standard model myself. Never-the-less, I'll play devils advocate and ask you the same question, "What is space". The standard model defines space as the 4 dimensional structure created by the Big Bang. According to this position, space would not exist without this outpouring of energy. If this theory is wrong and space is simply nothingness, is it really possible to correctly define the word nothingness..........BTW, I've sent you a Private message, would you please read it when you have a chance................Infy

[coldcreation]

Are you suggesting that space is absolute nothingness, that space would exist whether or not energy was present to structure it's dimensionality? If so, this thought has also crossed my mind on several occasions. But having said that I must remind you that the standard model does not view space in this way. Do you have evidence that space can exist as nothingness?

 

I'm suggesting that space is a 3-D topological surface, or manifold, a continuum. If everything in space could be extracted then yes, it would have an absolute value of curvature and energy equal to zero. It would be a flat Minkowski spacetime. But everything cannot be extracted, there is always ZPE and ZPF. That, though, does not take away, or remove the fact that space is a fundamental surface. On the contrary, it provides evidence that the surface exists, that space is not 'nothing.'

 

 

 

Less is more if the membership becomes so overwhelmed with a volume of material they would just as soon not waist their time on. Not to mention the constant repetition of formerly stated opinions. And this statement is directed more so at Puff than yourself Cold. Both you fellows are very intelligent but neither of you will have any success getting your ideas across by posting these very long and boring posts.

 

Are you suggesting I PM Rascal Puff. I thought this was a public, free, open forum. Where in the rules does it mention long posts will be cut short? If someone has something interesting to say (or write) so be it. Read it or not. That's up to each individual. Just as it's up to each individual to decide what is interesting. I say don't restrict...........anyone else feel the same? I've seen discussions in other places on this forum where long messages have been posted too. No problem by me. Those interested can always print out the text and read during BMs.

 

As you already know, I'm not really very fond of the standard model myself. Never-the-less, I'll play devils advocate and ask you the same question, "What is space". The standard model defines space as the 4 dimensional structure created by the Big Bang. According to this position, space would not exist without this outpouring of energy. If this theory is wrong and space is simply nothingness, is it really possible to correctly define the word nothingness..........BTW, I've sent you a Private message, would you please read it when you have a chance................Infy

 

I've answered your (Sergey500's) query several time already. Space is a surface. One which has remarkable aspects, qualities, properties, elaborated upon in a different thread, vis Material Creation.

 

c------o------l------d------c------r------e------a------t------i------o------n

[Turtle]

:evil:

Of course, in a 4-D universe, the value of time and space (4-D space-time) inevitably varies, from coordinate system to coordinate system. The speed of light for example, is ever-increasing, while remaining constant, relative to the coordinate system in which it originates and from which it is measured. The value of time being covariant with the smaller and larger - earlier and later - 4-D space-times it occurs and/or is measured in (Mr. McCutcheon & associates copy & edit well? :eek: ). Fact #12

 

- Puff

 

Hello Kent,

___Quite the open country you have here; let me grab my walking stick & perambulate.

___I honestly still have not read your original work of '59, but rather their preambles & the discourse here at Hypography.

Summary of my understanding of what I think you are saying:

Everything is isolated singlular expanding electrical charge fields or accumulations of these singular expanding electrical charge fields. The charge is carried on the surfaces/outside. The larger the surface, the greater the number of smaller surfaces can get dragged by electromagnetism & we experience this as gravity.

Ok so far? Thank you for perusing my missive,

Turtle

[IrishEyes]

NOTE TO ALL:

Please refrain from posting thesis length answers to topics. While your views are always eagerly appreciated, many of us have neither the time nor inclination to read dissertations during the few minutes we get on our computers each day.

Might I suggest that you instead contact Tormod about possibly writing a "HYPOGRAPHY" for this site, in which you can put forth your ideas to anyone interested, without making it difficult for a general user (like myself) to follow a thread?

[EWright]

Puff... can you please format using the quote feature? It's a pain in the rump to read through all your self-invented formatting and your posts are too damn long.

[Turtle]

"Nothing begets nothing." - Hume

("There is no such known condition as 'empty space'." - TRP)

 

"The same event or entity cannot occur simultaneously in two different places." - Locke

 

"Whatever you see is a physical extension of where it originated. Consider the ganglionic network of tactile - sensing - tissue in the largest of human organs - the skin (epidermal blanket; stratified squamus). It's plural detection and conduction of touch, pressure, heat, cold; etceteras, is no less comparable as a system of sensory tissues than is the retina - cells of 'rods & cones' of the mammalian eye - the retinae senses, because it is being stimulated, literally 'touched', by incoming light energy, which is no less real than the tactile reception and signals of a handshake or the tandem experience of a massage. That is to say, human sensory perception confirms that the 'empty space' between twinkling Hydrogen stars and the Earth, for example, is lively and bustling with energy." - TRP

 

:)

So trying to make a better mammalian eye by putting more & smaller rods& cones into the same size eye won't work; you need a bigger eye with the same size rods & cones? Is that correct analogy?:wave:

[IrishEyes]

TRP,

I have sent you a PRIVATE MESSAGE. As per our FAQ, all PMs from a Moderator or Administrator require a response. Please make sure to respond to this PM in a timely manner.

Thank you,

IrishEyes

[Turtle]

:)

The message on the 'mammalian eyes', compared to human is probly right. Anyway, I meant human and thought that included most mammals.

**********************************

Excerpt from Message #121 in Science Forums Hypography thread, follows - non-mathematically explaining Quantum Mechanics, apparent discontinuity, and it's compatibility with and as a result of 4-D field theory (this explanation is without precedent):

_________________________________

...

Is not the explanation herein, why all objects, regardless of their mass value, 'descend' at the same rate of acceleration and strike the earth at the same time, when simultaneously released from the same height? Since, cannon ball and bb shot are not actually falling at all, but only appearing to do so, due to the ubiquitous uniform expansion of the entire frame of reference, including any and all observers and test object(s)? Revealing the illusion of an apparently falling object; with the earth instead rising-up to overtake, meet and strike it, rather than conversely?

(Re: "Non-absolute space". And, "The universe is finite (*at any given moment in space), but unbounded." - Einstein

(*KBR)

 

(Final post in this series - Reprise Pt V follows.)

 

Eureka!:) I see it; I really SEE it! Oh My Non-dice-playing God! I am speechless; I am without speech. No wonder Feyeman said what he did about your work Rascall Puff.;)

[IrishEyes]

Dear IrishEyes:

I just clicked on your profile, but don't see a way to receive your message, which I'm entirely willing to abide by. No. I didn't see that you're an Administrator but I surely am trying to stay in line, here. No. Offense intended. Is the message in my Email. I'm going to check it post haste. If it's not there, will you please instruct me how to receive it?

Respectfully,

- Puff

TRP,

At the top of the page, you will see "Hypography Science Forums". Below that is a bar that has 'User CP (Control Panel)', 'Forum Index', 'Portal', etc. Click on 'Forum Index'. This will take you to our main forum index page; all of the forums should be visible. Near the top of the page, you should see your User Name, along with a line that says "Private Messages". Click on the words "Private Messages". This will take you to your Private Messages folder. From here, you can view and send PMs.

There are several other ways to get to the Forum Index page, but this seems to be the easiest and most easliy explainable for my purposes. Your use and understanding of other forum functions will expand with time and practice. I ask that other members be patient and considerate during the interim.

If you need any further instruction, please let me know.

[IrishEyes]

Dear Administrator IrishEyes:

It wouldn't appear on the screen for a while but I finally did receive your private message and notably patient instructions. I will do my best to comply, including further familiarizing myself with FAQ, which I just learned means 'frequently asked questions'.

Respectfully & gratefully,

- Puff

(Is there a way I can learn how to use the 'quote' modality without inconveniencing anyone. Is there a place I can click on to that explains such things? I'm an old guy but on-line computering <I used only word processors for 15 years without ever being on line until Sept. 2002 and have had very little instruction. I apologize for any inconvenience or unconventional procedure.)

I will start a thread in the "TEST" forum, and be hanging out there if you need any help. I will be more than happy to help you with these functions. Please go to the TEST forum, and look for a thread called "Help for That Rascal Puff"...

[infamous]

___Took me months to figure out;:)

Hey Turtle; I think this feature was also the most difficult thing for me to learn how to use here at Hypography. Hang in there TRP, it will come to you with a little practice...................good luck............Infy

[Turtle]

Dear Turtle:

 

Yours is among the most rewarding and (unfortunately) unusual communications that have ever been made to Truly Yours on this (incalculably valuable) issue. ...

... Thank you for informing me of your having just begun to realize how marooned you are, in or out of a group of peers, your best friends, and/or a crowd. Please stay in touch, as it were. (Hope I don't get gigged for straying 'off topic', here.)

Best regards - Mr. Opthamologistic Turtel - to You & Yours.

- Puff

:)

My pleasure Sir; you are too kind.

___With my new understanding, may I bring us back on topic & discuss the shape of the field? In particular I want to consider Trimtab's (R. Buckminster Fuller) view on the shape of things.:)

Also, has anyone proposed any experiments predicated on the fields as you describe?

___Best Sincere Regards In Return

- Turtel

[IrishEyes]

Please click here...http://hypography.com/forums/test-forum/4603-help-rascal-puff.html#post70967