Space is not empty or continuous, it is the essence of dark energy. It’s a long explanation but space is the result of something that emanates from one to three points, simultaneously, in a manner such that the inverse square law is established.
Orthogonal dimensions are created from one and two dimensional percepts.
I know I confused you…it’s the result of hyper-relativistic motions.
It’s a motion that provides the geometry of the Universe. The geometry must be contained, therefore it is not continuous.
Its been widely accepted since einstein. Baically special relativity says both space and time are relative. But If we combine the two and instead of talking in 3d space with added time we use spacetime instead.
Geometry only works physically in spacetime.
If you rotate an object in space what was its hieght and width will change yes? If you rotate an object in spacetime its length can contract and its time can dilate. Its just the same idea as rotation in 3d geometry. Now imagine that this 4d space can be curved in the same way that the surface of a bed sheet isn’t flat. This is the idea of spacetime curvature in general relativity.
So in physics we take the view that space and time can be seen as geometry and matter/energy exist in this geometry and they themselves are what causes the geometry to be curved.
This doesn’t really answer the question what is spacetime? but i think its correct to ask what is spacetime rather than what is space and what is time…
I have a conceptual explanation that you might find handy:
It comes from a theory that I heard that the big bang expanded the universe into existnece in just a fraction of a second. How could that be possible one might ask? In order for matter to move from the middle to the fringe of the universe in a micro-second would require matter travelling many times faster than the speed of light which many believe to be impossible.
The answer: that when the big bang occurred, the “space” that it occurred in was not the same as our space. That there was a grain of concentrated matter in this “other” space that would allow for matter travelling at those speeds.
So within our space, travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible because of the “whatever” that makes everything up.
While I don’t understand the concept entirely myself, it does make me think about our own “space” as not having any actual space in it. It is like a fabric of which we can only perceive a few threads. Their are no “pockets”.
I think ‘space’ is absence of substantiality. I assume the scientific answers you’re receiving to the question are describing physical/energetic characteristics of what we (mistakenly?) call space. Am I stating the obvious? I’m not sure…
Muscular Philosopher, from now on I am going to follow you in the way as shown below.
QUOTE Muscular Philosopher
Space is not empty or continuous, it is the essence of dark energy. It’s a long explanation but space is the result of something that emanates from one to three points, simultaneously, in a manner such that the inverse square law is established. Orthogonal dimensions are created from one and two dimensional percepts.
I know I confused you…it’s the result of hyper-relativistic motions.
It’s a motion that provides the geometry of the Universe. The geometry must be contained, therefore it is not continuous.
Well, I’m careful with that. Motion could be the result of a cause that is not physical with certainty (such as in the case of vacuum fluctuation/quantum physics anomalies), but as a general rule – yes.
A photon moves, the non-spatial moves, all ‘things’ (bad word) that are not physical are in motion. They cause motion.
The abstract confuses people. Most see the abstract as time when it is not.
An example is that time is like the unemployment rate, an abstract.
The unemployed and employed people are ‘real’, the rate is the abstract. It’s man-made. It’s a measurement, like you-know-what.
Causes and effects are existent, regardless of subjective attributions of “abstractness,” since they can be observed. The unemployment rate exists, regardless of how “abstract” it is. You can look at the manner which it is measured, find the properties, and observe the interaction that produces the percentage that makes up the figure. That the truth confuses people is irrelevant to its veracity – the question at hand. Cause and effect aren’t necessarily man-made, and even if a human produced an effect the cause would still be real. Because humans can discover the qualities of their surroundings does not mean that they are not real. It’s actually evidence for the opposite. That is unless of course you are a cartesian… but if you go down that route consistently enough you can’t really know anything. =o
The motion isn’t just moving, it’s doing something. If it weren’t doing something even internally systematic, it wouldn’t be moving – and it wouldn’t even exist. Hence the necessity for cause and effect.
Agreed, well said. The employment rate is just an analogy to explain what most think of as time. The rate is ‘real’, but an abstract. It’s a measurement, much like what most people see time as.
I’m being a bit simple when describing motion, I could on and on about what motion is…
Space is a cornicopia of stimuli.
Old science states- space is in what matter exists in. But in actuality matter is a a product of space.
" Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept empty space loses its meaning. … Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high." - Albert Einstein
Space is temporality, becoming conscious, projecting its possibilities in relation to the temporal flow, the flux, and in relation to other temporal unites.
