wepe Posted August 6, 2004 Report Posted August 6, 2004 do you agree, that space is 2 or more connected interivals with space between them.
Tormod Posted August 6, 2004 Report Posted August 6, 2004 Moved to the Physics and Mathematics category.
Freethinker Posted August 6, 2004 Report Posted August 6, 2004 Originally posted by: wepedo you agree, that space is 2 or more connected interivals with space between them.??? how can "space" be two somethings with "space" between them? god sure is smart to have created all of this...AnyTHING that would design things the way they are would have to be considered a compete idiot!
Bo Posted August 11, 2004 Report Posted August 11, 2004 the way you said it is somewhat strange (you cant define something by using that something in the definition; it is a complete meaningless statement) But if i understand you correctly: yes i more or less agree with you; how i would say it: Space is the concept that makes sure that different points dont interact directly; Bo
Tormod Posted August 11, 2004 Report Posted August 11, 2004 I can think up at least three meanings of the word "space": 1) The "something" that fills the expanse between large objects in the universe (intergalatctic, interplanetary etc space) 2) The expanse filled by walls or other barriers (a room has "space") 3) A fundamental property of space-time, ie one of the basic constituents of our universe, which cannot be divided into sizes smaller than the planck length. At this Google page there are endless other definitions:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:space I agree with Bo - you need to explain what aspect of the term "space" you are referring to.
Freethinker Posted August 11, 2004 Report Posted August 11, 2004 My father always joked about kids that did not put in effort while going to school. He called them Astronauts, because "they were taking up space".
TeleMad Posted August 13, 2004 Report Posted August 13, 2004 Bo: Space is the concept that makes sure that different points dont interact directly; I've heard a similar, working definition: space is what separates objects of any size, making them distinct. But then the author goes on to show how "spooky action at a distance" (nonlocality, I believe) invalidates his working definition...and I would think yours too (unless your "directly" means via direct physical contact; but if it does, it remains problematic since space separates things that don't interact through direct physical contact forces, but rather via field forces).
Freethinker Posted August 13, 2004 Report Posted August 13, 2004 Originally posted by: TeleMadBo: Space is the concept that makes sure that different points dont interact directly; I've heard a similar, working definition: space is what separates objects of any size, making them distinct.This would encroach Zeno's paradox. Is it possible for "objects of any size" to regress to an infinitely small size? If so the space between them would have to be infinitely small. As such "space" could not occupy itself.
nemo Posted August 16, 2004 Report Posted August 16, 2004 FT - I had not considered this before, but your reply seems eminently logical. Excellent post.
GAHD Posted August 20, 2004 Report Posted August 20, 2004 Originally posted by: FreethinkerOriginally posted by: TeleMad Bo: Space is the concept that makes sure that different points dont interact directly; I've heard a similar, working definition: space is what separates objects of any size, making them distinct. This would encroach Zeno's paradox. Is it possible for "objects of any size" to regress to an infinitely small size? If so the space between them would have to be infinitely small. As such "space" could not occupy itself. Why not? I see no reason space couldn't occupy itself.
Freethinker Posted August 20, 2004 Report Posted August 20, 2004 Originally posted by: GAHDOriginally posted by: FreethinkerThis would encroach Zeno's paradox. Is it possible for "objects of any size" to regress to an infinitely small size? If so the space between them would have to be infinitely small. As such "space" could not occupy itself.Why not? I see no reason space couldn't occupy itself.If it was "infinitely small" there would not BE any "Space" for it to occupy. The original premise was that "space" was the "distance between" things. And if "Space" IS infinitely small, then it would not even "be".
Recommended Posts