What IS space?

[Qfwfq]

How about this one. Water is water.

Therefore water can't be "nothing", just like space can't!!!! :hyper:

[coldcreation]

.

[sergey500]

I'm going to open myself up to all kinds of criticism here. But here goes:

 

What if Space is, actually, in essence, nothing at all? Because the moment we assign attributes of any kind to it, it implies that space is something, and anything which is something needs to be hosted in another container, one level up, if you will. Assigning any kind of topography to it is pointless. Objects exist in space, because space is just the emptyness needed for something to float in.

 

This is obviously not compatible with space expanding, as such. Which might force a rethink of c. Which I'm not qualified to do, and all the above is probably hogwash. But think about it - maybe our misunderstanding of c have forced us to use space as a scapegoat and assign attributes to it that it does not have; serving only to cover up our weak grasp of the essence of light, and the speed at which it propagates.

 

...but it's probably hogwash, so don't break your head over it. I'm just suffering from diarrhoea of the keyboard.

 

:confused: whats the problem with that? Thats exactly what we have been dabating for the last 9 pages....when i already said I got my answer.

 

Space is uniform energy. At the smallest level. In between the nucleas of an atom and the electrons, space between it energy. Emptyness between the particles in space, is energy. It makes sense to me, so i will go with that. And no one has disproven why it is not energy.

[sergey500]

.

 

Did you write something? . is not much of response.

[sergey500]

Here is my half a cent. I believe that space has mass, distance and time, with each of these three components having two light speed components in the other two aspects. For example, the finite mass component of space allows it to be bent by gravity. While its complementary light speed components also allowing it to conduct distance and time components at the speed of light. These two light speed components conduct the light speed of wavelength/frequency phenomena like EM energy without lose of energy. It also defines the equivilent of mass and energy.

 

The finite time component of space conducts distance and mass effect at the speed of light. The change of distance and mass occurs via the conduction of the speed of light of gravity. The finite time of space is an artifact of a finite universe and its place in its evolutionary cycle. It defines both long and short time.

 

The finite distance component conducts time and mass effect at the speed of light. Time and mass affect is heat and nuclear force (mass changing over time). The finite distance effect of space is the finite size of the universe both large and small and is connected to the changing size of the universe both large and small.

 

These are intermeshed and evolve with the universe. Evolving space allows the evolving universe to conduct differently over time, thereby helping to define inertial expression of force and energy at that point in time. This is connected to relativity and average space referecne.

 

Good point, but i am missing what you tryed to define in long and shot time is what confused me. Also what is EM energy? I am afraid i have never heard of that before.

 

I am definatly missing something or I did not understand some part of it. How are you able to say that change of in universe, as you said not as it sounds, is large and small.

 

...I am sorry, i somehow did not understand your point, do me a favor and rephrase that in dumbass words so people like me can understand it or else I do not see what your getting at.

[sergey500]

To say that space is nothing is to say that matter is something. It means nothing.

 

If space where nothing, it wound not have very specific quatities, or properties. Polarization of the vacuum would be impossible. Curvature, gravity would be meaningless. After all, what would be curved? If the universe is expanding, as 99% of you think, what is expanding?

 

If space where nothing how could one ascribe a coordinate system to it.

 

If space is the absence of matter, energy and field, then the vacuum is something.

 

See...

 

Barron, R.F. 1985, Cryogenic Systems, Second Edition

Coudec, P. 1952, The Expansion of the Universe

Eddington, A., 1921, Space Time and Gravitation

Eddington, A., 1958, The Expanding Universe

Einstein, A. 1916, 1961,Relativity, The Special and the General Theory

Einstein, A., Infeld, L. 1938, 1961, The Evolution of Physics, The Growth of Ideas from

Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta

Ellis, G.F.R. 1975, Cosmology and Verifiability 245-263

Ellis, G.F.R., 1977, Is the Universe Expanding?, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 9,

No. 2 (1978), pp. 87-94

Gómez-Flechoso, M. A., and Domíniguez-Tenreiro, R. 2001, On the Stability of Quasi-

Equilibrium Self-gravitating

Gunzig, E., Diner, S., 1997-98, Le Vide, Univers du Tout et du Rien

Havas, P., 1993, The General-Relativistic Two-Body Problem and the Einstein-Silberstein

Controversy, from The Attraction of Gravitation, New Studies in the History of General

Relativity (Einstein Studies Vol. 5) pp. 90, 91, 117

Hawking, S.W., 1989, The New Physics, The Edge of Spacetime, 61-69

Manzhelii, V.G., Freiman, Y.A. 1997, Physics of Cryocrystals

Monastyrsky, M. 1979, 1987, Riemann, Topology and Physics 18-31

Pobell, F. 1992, 1996, Matter and Methods at Low Temperatures 8-13

Prigogine, I., 1996, The End of Certainty, Time Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature

Roth, A. 1990, Vacuum Technology (introduction)

Saffman, P.G. 1992, Vortex Dynamics

Schneider, P., Ehlers, J. Falco, E.E. 1992, Gravitational Lenses

Sedov L.I. 1983 Macroscopic Theories of Matter and Fields: A Thermodynamic Approach

Smith, R. 1982, The Expanding Universe

Thouless, D.J. 1989, Condensed mater physics in less than three dimensions 209-235

Thouless, D.J. 1998, Topological Quantum Numbers in Nonrelativistic Physics

 

...to name a few

 

Coldcreation.

PS. If space were nothing we wouldn't be here...

 

 

That exactly what we were saying. Space is something, if it wasn't and was indeed nothing it would not exist, therefor,as you said, we would not be here to discuss this in the first place.

 

p.s. although i understood your first statement, i found it funny how confusing it is if read without paying attention to it.

[sergey500]

Space is space? Why didn't anyone think of that before?

 

How about this one. Water is water.

 

Although that would work it would create paradox in what is the next defination. If you not understand what nothing is you can say nothing is nothing, because we do not know what nothing is. (The absense of everything)

[coldcreation]

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[sergey500]

what are you saying coldcreation?

[Guadalupe]

I would say, that space is the product from which the fabric of motion, caused by the force from the strength of the explosion when energy is applied. Motion is the fabric, responsible for the creation of space, as it expands outward. :surprise:

[Jay-qu]

Also what is EM energy?

 

Electro-Magnetic Radiation ie Infrared - light - ultraviolet :surprise:

 

and coldcreation is just answering the topics question of what is space :confused:

[Qfwfq]

what are you saying coldcreation?

Coldcreation is saying "."!

 

Although that would work it would create paradox in what is the next defination. If you not understand what nothing is you can say nothing is nothing, because we do not know what nothing is. (The absense of everything)

Obviously nothing is nothing. In both senses of the sentence!!!!! :( :( :D :D :D :D :D

:shrug: :frown: :P ;) :surprise: :surprise: :confused:

[coldcreation]

Coldcreation is saying "."!

 

Obviously nothing is nothing. In both senses of the sentence!!!!! :( :( :D :D :D :D :D

:shrug: :frown: :P ;) :surprise: :surprise: :confused:

 

hihih,

I'm saying, or rather, not saying, that nothing is somthing, or we would be nothing.

 

Space is not nothing. It has very specific properties.

 

Coldcreation

[sergey500]

Oh, thanks jay-qu.l

[Qfwfq]

I'm saying, or rather, not saying, that nothing is somthing, or we would be nothing.

I guess in the sense that, since nothing is nothing, not even nothing is nothing, hence nothing is something.

 

I must admit, I hadn't thought of that corollary! Therefore space can be nothing, yet still be something. So I guess you mean that we can be something, despite us being nothing....

 

What a wonderful word 'nothing' is!!!!!

 

:surprise:

[Boerseun]

As matter and energy is the same thing, so space and time is the same thing.

 

Seeing as time is the impression we get from things moving through space, I suppose space/time is indeed two perspectives of one and the same thing.

 

Now, "What if" time:

 

What if, from a 'higher' level, everything is just the same thing looked at from different 'angles'? (for want of a better word...)

 

So that we can actually have a matter/energy/space/time reality, where it's actually all just the same thing? Where every single one of those four is just different manifestations of different perspectives of the other three?

 

Diarrhoea of the keyboard again...

[Qfwfq]

Space and time are the same thing except...

 

They are different types of direction in space-time. Timelike directions and spacelike ones have opposite signs of the interval squared. Null directions are those for which the interval squared is zero, light and other massles particles go in null directions, while one with mass goes in a timelike direction. No Lorentz coordinate transformation changes one type of direction into another.