What is space really?

[sushi]

I am obsessed with this topic and really want to know the answer.

we've been taught in school that everything is made of atoms, or mass and energy, but space itself just seems to defy all this.

I really want to know what is space, and what it is made of, and how to define it.

 

[Black Rose]

space is virtual
like all things
motion is an illusion

it is all just measurement shifts / renderings

 

[Polaris]

At a subatomic level, it becomes increasingly difficult to identify where space ends and matter begins. It seems to be more a question of information and approximation.

 

[lightfire]

Yes good point because there are different compositions of elements present erywhere.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Seems along the lines of what is time or what is gravity or what is chaos or what is........ we dont know beyond what we can observe. I mean there doesnt seem to be any atom theory like perspective on it. What we currently have is space-time concept. Beyond that what it really is irrelevant questions since there is no framework for space. Essentially space could be the canvas and cosmos could be the painting. For all we know its what it is. Only way to learn about space is use math to describe it in geometrical terms. Such as Euclidian space or whatever.
From theory to reality what you can learn is by using form of observation or experiment.

 

[sushi]

my guess what space is made of

it is made of these elements at least or some variations.

points
lines
area/plane
or solid shape.

points could represnent and, or a small sand or a rice, or very small dust.

lines could represent curved or straight, or a silk thread.

plane could present a paper, an area or surface that is 2D.

solid shape could represent a cube, a sphere, a pyramid or any 3d container, construct.

 

[sushi]

Kant debates rather space is a human imagination construct or really exist as on object entity outside our mind.

 

[sushi]

shapes and lines all boil down to linear and non linear

 

[washti]

conceptual, key element in perception.
thanks to space you can distinguish and describe the observed phenomena, it's structure, interaction between constituting elements, and bounds of this system.
definitions differ and depend on the nature of the phenomenon you want to understand(like level of abstraction)
concept of space-time is one thing, mathematical space is something else and so is a vacuum
each of them is explained in the form of a mathematical model.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Most people are just using the opportunity of using given knowledge they happened upon to piece together the usual idea of what it is, leading to me or others defending the actual definition of what it is. “The universe is more beautiful than anyone can ever imagine.” Space is just a consequence of time, or vice versa. There’s spacetime, which in your collective definition is NOT a metaphor, so it’s usually taken to be a property or dimension of space or the universe. If there’s space movement or acceleration of an object requires time for it to experience. Newton defined time as being independent of space, not as a result of it. This time could exist on its own. That’s also a non-mainstream idea in science or underground ways of thought in non academic spheres, and a “spiritual” idea that hipsters can easily say without using and science or work whatsoever, just popularism. At the heart of things, things are only relative on a surface level.

 

[sushi]

one has to distinguish what is inside the space and what is outside the space, what is included in that space, and what is excluded.

 

[gilliatt]

Space is a relationship, only in the universe. The universe is not in space any more than it is in time. Everything is in a position, a certain relationship to the boundary of some surface which you stand. Ex. you are in say Richmond, Virginia, there is a point of the earth's surface on which you stand, your spatial position, your relation to this point. In sum, 'there is a space between two objects(containers) occupying different positions. The universe, if I understand it correctly, cannot be anywhere; not in Richmond, not in the Milky Way. Places are in the universe, not the other way around. Also, everything that exists is finite, including the universe, nothing outside the universe. That question would be invalid. The universe is everything, no outside! That would stand for, that which is where everything isn't. No such place. No nothing, no out there.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

If you wouldn’t have space, then nothing could exist because everything would be located at one point, a singularity. So since I exist then geometrical space must exist. Did I just obliterate all of Kant’s work?

 

[sushi]

Space is a relationship, only in the universe. The universe is not in space any more than it is in time. Everything is in a position, a certain relationship to the boundary of some surface which you stand. Ex. you are in say Richmond, Virginia, there is a point of the earth's surface on which you stand, your spatial position, your relation to this point. In sum, 'there is a space between two objects(containers) occupying different positions. The universe, if I understand it correctly, cannot be anywhere; not in Richmond, not in the Milky Way. Places are in the universe, not the other way around. Also, everything that exists is finite, including the universe, nothing outside the universe. That question would be invalid. The universe is everything, no outside! That would stand for, that which is where everything isn't. No such place. No nothing, no out there.

what you say is equal to the theory that there are things (matter and mass) before there is space, and space cannot exist without presence of matter and mass. Space is not an independent entity, but rather connecctions between matter and location.

If you wouldn’t have space, then nothing could exist because everything would be located at one point, a singularity. So since I exist then geometrical space must exist. Did I just obliterate all of Kant’s work?

singularity or no distance between masses all mass and matter concentrated in one big mass.

 

[sushi]

if space is like water, space is either contained or uncontained, inclusive or exclusive (what is outside the space and what is inside the space)

contained space is equal contained water inside a bottle, or contained inside a room.

uncontained space is like uncontained water or ocean like everywhere.

but i believe space is inherently contained.

 

[Pizzabeak]

If you wouldn’t have space, then nothing could exist because everything would be located at one point, a singularity. So since I exist then geometrical space must exist. Did I just obliterate all of Kant’s work?

The singularity would exist then. It’s space. So no, you didn’t. There’s nothing presupposing that you even exist. There’s no relation between you existing and “geometrical space” being a necessary consequence of that. The way you perceive the world may not necessarily be the same as anyone else. You could be a zombie. One can exist and be conscious, one can exist and not be conscious yet still exist, for all intents and purposes you’d be unable to tell the difference. “Socrates was wise; Socrates was a man; therefore all men are wise,” is not necessarily valid.

 

[The Grey Man]

If you wouldn’t have space, then nothing could exist because everything would be located at one point, a singularity. So since I exist then geometrical space must exist. Did I just obliterate all of Kant’s work?

Your body exists in space, in community with other physical objects, but you do not. The difference between your body and you can be compared to the picture taken by a camera and the camera itself. If we point the camera at a mirror, it can take a picture of itself, but it is not that picture. It is a machine that processes light into pictures, not the visible appearance of that process in the finished product. Similarly, a man is a machine, so to speak, that processes sense-data into thoughts and actions. The complement of volition and imagination is the soul of a man, of whom the mouth that says "I" and the arm that points inwardly are but the "limbs and outward flourishes."

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

If you wouldn’t have space, then nothing could exist because everything would be located at one point, a singularity. So since I exist then geometrical space must exist. Did I just obliterate all of Kant’s work?

Your body exists in space, in community with other physical objects, but you do not. The difference between your body and you can be compared to the picture taken by a camera and the camera itself. If we point the camera at a mirror, it can take a picture of itself, but it is not that picture. It is a machine that processes light into pictures, not the visible appearance of that process in the finished product. Similarly, a man is a machine, so to speak, that processes sense-data into thoughts and actions. The complement of volition and imagination is the soul of a man, of whom the mouth that says "I" and the arm that points inwardly are but the "limbs and outward flourishes."

I know, but when I'm speaking of "I" I mostly mean my consciousness. I obviously cannot know for sure that my body exists, so what I'm claiming is that in order for anything complex (like my consciousness) to exist, its parts must be able to exist apart from each other. Space is what allows for this.

 

[The Grey Man]

If you wouldn’t have space, then nothing could exist because everything would be located at one point, a singularity. So since I exist then geometrical space must exist. Did I just obliterate all of Kant’s work?

Your body exists in space, in community with other physical objects, but you do not. The difference between your body and you can be compared to the picture taken by a camera and the camera itself. If we point the camera at a mirror, it can take a picture of itself, but it is not that picture. It is a machine that processes light into pictures, not the visible appearance of that process in the finished product. Similarly, a man is a machine, so to speak, that processes sense-data into thoughts and actions. The complement of volition and imagination is the soul of a man, of whom the mouth that says "I" and the arm that points inwardly are but the "limbs and outward flourishes."

I know, but when I'm speaking of "I" I mostly mean my consciousness. I obviously cannot know for sure that my body exists, so what I'm claiming is that in order for anything complex (like my consciousness) to exist, its parts must be able to exist apart from each other. Space is what allows for this.

If by "I," you mean your consciousness and not your body, then your argument is equivalent to Kant's. He claimed that space arose from the synthesis of sense-data by the a priori categories of the understanding such as community and causality, which is indispensable to human cognition in general. So the notion that consciousness of a complex of empirical objects implies extension does not contradict Kant.

 

[gilliatt]

Let's say us humans are compelled to eat once a day. I give this no thought, I get hungry...eat. You probably do not understand me, will try to explain this perceptual illusion. See, I always take for grant the food will be there. Then, what if I was in nature, in the wilderness, that would be a bigger problem. I would need tools, time to hunt, weapons, clothes, shelter, a place to live while building, making all this etc. It would take all my time. I am 'one', make no different, could be 10, 1000, a million. Numbers are immaterial in regard to nature, it is still the same. Out there is nature, I, a million cannot live without effort, some of us need to know how to hunt, build, even those mean old rulers. But there is Agriculture, someone 'saves' seeds, plants them & harvest them. It is about next years food supply. No, you do not touch your stock seed, if you do, it is over with. 'Space for the seed to grow, space for buildings, for tool making, for production, for stuff one needs...Kant, 'It's logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality.' Kant's philosophy is the biggest booby trap in the history of philosophy. It is so full of holes. Kant had a hatred for the innocent, the able, the good for being good, the strong, self-interest, individualism, freedom, man, life, mind. Control..control, control, enslave, enslave, communism, collectivism, he loves these things. It is all opposite the America way, America refutes Kantianism.

 

[The Grey Man]

Kant's philosophy is the biggest booby trap in the history of philosophy. It is so full of holes. Kant had a hatred for the innocent, the able, the good for being good, the strong, self-interest, individualism, freedom, man, life, mind. Control..control, control, enslave, enslave, communism, collectivism, he loves these things. It is all opposite the America way, America refutes Kantianism.

There's Kantianism and there's Kantianism. Kant the practical philosopher was a Protestant workaholic who thought he could justify his workaholism and enforce it on everyone around him by means of a "categorical imperative" (what Schopenhauer later called his "sceptre of wooden iron" in one of the greatest burns in the history of Western philosophy) and, in this sense, he is a forerunner of the sophistical state apologism that we find in Hegel (the godfather of all contemporary authoritarian "liberals"), but Kant the cognitive theorist contributed the notion that knowledge is occasioned by the senses, but structured by the mind, which continues to be relevant today as an antidote to Cartesian apriorism as well as the Humean skepticism that reduced empirical phenomena to a mere "heap of perceptions."

 

[Pizzabeak]

Kant’s goal was to make messianism, which is not what you think it is in terms of making simple “predictions” and revelation seem irrational and ridiculous. Any links to it are of the goal of eradicating what most might call religion. Thus, it is plain and simple, and since things need to be spelled out constantly, all philosophy is merely heresy and propaganda. Say, anyone can write a book, and then what is propagated, not just by those who read it, simply can’t just become truth by either popular consensus or bitterness. St. Thomas Aquinas doesn’t need Kant to be meaningful. There’s no spirituality in it.
More people would know about the criticism of Kant’s philosophy except the project was sabotaged, for unknown reasons, maybe to protect something in the future from any backlash it may have caused. The publishing industry can be passive aggressive, by all means.
In any case it would be that Kant agreed with Newton instead of Leibniz, whose ideas were more relative, in that relativity eventually updated Newton’s classical mechanics. No one really knows what Newton meant by God’s Sensorium and that space was absolute, except that it implies it could encompass a theory of everything, and that it’s mostly a unique universe with no real other alternative ones or multiverses. Relativity just made it easier to see how that can be so. France and Germany of course were deceived by Kant’s philosophies. It isn’t so complex except for the notion of a lot of double meanings floating around.

 

[sushi]

how many planes (minimum) does it take to build a space/room?


2 planes like top and bottom? (like sky or earth)

or top/bottom left/right 4 planes

or top bottom left right front back 6 planes

 

[sushi]

according to youtube video , Kant's idea is that space is imagined by human consciousness and does not exist outside human consciousness, and space is only a relation between objects constructed by the mind

that is wrong is many sense.

 

[sushi]

what is relations between objects?

the relational view is that space is relation/distance between cordinates (which represent objects)

 

[sushi]

geometric structure

https://www.istockphoto.com/hk/vector/幾何圖形圖示-gm954741422-260677741

 

[sushi]

what is the consequence if we can manipulate and change the geometry of space

 

[Pizzabeak]

That’s all philosophy. No one even knows what Kant’s most popular idea is. Space being distance relations is just relativity at its simplest. It means with velocity space and time combine to be considered spacetime. Events are relative merely at the frame of reference of acceleration. It turns out that at default space time can be considered to be uniform, to an extent. It isn’t, as shown by the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. The fluctuating densities indicate different temperatures throughout it, so it isn’t flat. That defines matter as warping spacetime and causing gravity. That’s mass, which relativity says is energy. One way to convert it is to touch it with anti-matter so the energy is released as an explosion via E=mc^2. That doesn’t mean you can space or time travel by contracting spacetime. A vector is just three points that can be plotted on a graph as coordinates. The numbers can be complex or imaginary too, and are only used to try and indicate a 4th dimension. Hamilton’s quaternions tried to define 4 dimensions by just adding another number to cubic equations. Time as a dimension tends to depend on c. Spacetime doesn’t so much warp when you move at faster velocities, you just accelerate more relative to other observers or events. Most things are steadily observed, so theoretically the electron probability clouds are stable wave functions. There’s a limited amount of space between electron orbits and the proton(s). Space is only a relative vacuum. An atmosphere causes friction, which is heat energy, so for example meteorites burn up upon entry or a larger asteroid can accumulate more force by that. An impact will expunge something like 40-60% of the air molecules on the planet, so it isn’t just clouds blocking out the sun that makes life go extinct during those events.
It’s always that things are there and we see them according to the photons entering our periphery. A more inner space, ideal notion supports the idea of quantum interference upon unobserved objects. Schrödinger’s cat is only technically both dead and alive. The Eurocentric, materialistic mindset desires more and more pinpointing of the photon for determination of position or velocity. It’s impossible to know both exactly. That isn’t a statistical average, it’s accuracy and precision. The only applications for space being unreal is to lend more credence for dreams and imagination in your head to be real by some regard.

 

[gilliatt]

Space is a relational concept. Well, the universe is not in space, it is not in time. Let's be logical, there is space between two objects, each occupying different positions. The universe cannot be anywhere because places etc are in the universe, not the other way around. Everything is finite.

 

[sushi]

Space is a relational concept.

what does that even mean though, all i see is space is a set of cordinates and space between them.

 

[sushi]

the building blocks of the universe seems to be space and nothing, rather than atoms, it does not explain dark matter dark energy. atoms are only for tangible matter.

 

[sushi]

the amount of space(nothing) between two points in the universe is what space is.
two or more points.

 

[sushi]

theortically the earth or star could expand into the size of the universe, its all a matter of scale.

its true of the smallest scale to the biggest scale.

 

[sushi]

I am beginning to think space and matter are the same thing

mass and weight is how much space and matter is contained in a volume

i need more verification because i am unsure.

 

[Rebis]

Do you mean space as in the distance between celestial bodies

Or do you mean Euclidian, 3 dimensional space?

 

[sushi]

Do you mean space as in the distance between celestial bodies

Or do you mean Euclidian, 3 dimensional space?

the fabric of empty space in the universe, not mathematical space.

 

[Rebis]

Space has to exist for matter to function. If everything was connected then all molecules wouldn't be distinguishable from another. Forces define interactivity between particles, gravity attracts and concentrates molecules, dark energy is the reason for expansion of the universe and dissipation of matter by expanding the distance between one particle and another.

For motion to occur in the universe there has to be empty space for mass to change from one position in space-time to another. Space is an inherent part of the universe we live in, no function can occur without it. Attraction, repel, motion, electromagnetism. These forces cannot occur if the universe was singular, without space between matter.

Space is the possible positions in space- time which matter can/cannot exist. Space could be defined by anything that is is observable up to the universe's universally surrounding cosmic background radiation.

Space is not a substance, it is a dimension. Matter exists within a dimension, but a dimension is not solely composed of matter.
Sent from my H3113 using Tapatalk

 

[Daddy]

I am beginning to think space and matter are the same thing

mass and weight is how much space and matter is contained in a volume

i need more verification because i am unsure.

That is a basis for relativity - the compression and expansion of space.

And matter can be made from space. Or rather according to this, they say
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2010/12/10/matterantimatter-from-the-vacuum/

"
New work at the University of Michigan, now written up in Physical Review Letters, discusses the possibility of producing matter and antimatter from the vacuum. The idea is that a high-energy electron beam combined with an intense laser pulse can pull matter and antimatter components out of the vacuum, creating a cascade of additional particles and anti-particles. UM Engineering research scientist Igor Sokolov has this to say about the theoretical study:

“We can now calculate how, from a single electron, several hundred particles can be produced. We believe this happens in nature near pulsars and neutron stars…”

That would make the vacuum a lively place indeed, as Sokolov acknowledges:

“It is better to say, following theoretical physicist Paul Dirac, that a vacuum, or nothing, is the combination of matter and antimatter—particles and antiparticles.Their density is tremendous, but we cannot perceive any of them because their observable effects entirely cancel each other out.”

"

But this is from 2010 and I think it's considered true now? But this is also related to Stephen Hawking's idea for Hawking Radiation. At the event horizon a particle and antiparticle are created, where the particle travels out into space and the antiparticle goes into the black hole to annihilate matter or perhaps it's better to say that it puts the matter into a vacuum state. I'd be willing to bet that future anti-gravity will come from a proper understanding of this phenomena.

 

[Rebis]

Sounds like a mix of ideas relating to the Aether like the effect of light in the vacuum and invisible matter that's not bound in our physical world.

 

[Marbles]

 

[Rebis]

20s scene:

 

[Marbles]

Fuck you. Whiskey! Gotta check Snuff Box out.

 

[sushi]

I am beginning to think space and matter are the same thing

mass and weight is how much space and matter is contained in a volume

i need more verification because i am unsure.

That is a basis for relativity - the compression and expansion of space.

And matter can be made from space. Or rather according to this, they say
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2010/12/10/matterantimatter-from-the-vacuum/

"
New work at the University of Michigan, now written up in Physical Review Letters, discusses the possibility of producing matter and antimatter from the vacuum. The idea is that a high-energy electron beam combined with an intense laser pulse can pull matter and antimatter components out of the vacuum, creating a cascade of additional particles and anti-particles. UM Engineering research scientist Igor Sokolov has this to say about the theoretical study:

“We can now calculate how, from a single electron, several hundred particles can be produced. We believe this happens in nature near pulsars and neutron stars…”

That would make the vacuum a lively place indeed, as Sokolov acknowledges:

“It is better to say, following theoretical physicist Paul Dirac, that a vacuum, or nothing, is the combination of matter and antimatter—particles and antiparticles.Their density is tremendous, but we cannot perceive any of them because their observable effects entirely cancel each other out.”

"

But this is from 2010 and I think it's considered true now? But this is also related to Stephen Hawking's idea for Hawking Radiation. At the event horizon a particle and antiparticle are created, where the particle travels out into space and the antiparticle goes into the black hole to annihilate matter or perhaps it's better to say that it puts the matter into a vacuum state. I'd be willing to bet that future anti-gravity will come from a proper understanding of this phenomena.

space= matter?
space =/= matter? , this is worthy of prove and investigation

its not matter and energy, but matter and space that are complementry

 

[Polaris]

I am beginning to think space and matter are the same thing


space= matter?
space =/= matter? , this is worthy of prove and investigation

its not matter and energy, but matter and space that are complementry

Yeah, I wonder if one could have a concept of space/matter similar to the concept of the spacetime. That the two are in fact inseparable (which seems logical as one cannot exist without the other - is there really such a thing as nothing?). Likewise, gravity would then be an emergent phenomenon rather than a fundamental force since the condensing of space/matter through electromagnetism and accretion would create gravitational forces. So when we talk about mass, matter and space, these would just represent different stages of the same thing, while gravity would be the emergent property.

 

[gilliatt]

Space is not an entity, like time, it is a relational concept. A relationship only existing in the universe. Everything is finite, even the universe. Nothing outside the universe, that would be a contradiction. Everything is in a position, means a certain relationship to the boundary to some container. You stand on a point, ex. stand on the surface of the earth, I stand on a certain point, we occupy different positions, two relationships. The universe cannot be anywhere. The universe cannot be in Wilmington NC. the Milky Way. Because places are in the universe, not the other way around. That is basically space defined. No nothing, no such place, no outside the universe. Universe =total, everything that exists. Existence exists, means that nature, the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated. The material of the universe system does not come into or out of existence. Think of it as a metaphysical given, not man-made...the nature of nature is beyond my little brain...

 

[..]

I am obsessed with this topic and really want to know the answer.

we've been taught in school that everything is made of atoms, or mass and energy, but space itself just seems to defy all this.

I really want to know what is space, and what it is made of, and how to define it.

Space and Time are both dimensions. It's not a physical thing you can touch, because all matter and energy exists within these dimensions. Think of it like a medium.

 

[..]

I am beginning to think space and matter are the same thing


space= matter?
space =/= matter? , this is worthy of prove and investigation

its not matter and energy, but matter and space that are complementry

Yeah, I wonder if one could have a concept of space/matter similar to the concept of the spacetime. That the two are in fact inseparable (which seems logical as one cannot exist without the other - is there really such a thing as nothing?). Likewise, gravity would then be an emergent phenomenon rather than a fundamental force since the condensing of space/matter through electromagnetism and accretion would create gravitational forces. So when we talk about mass, matter and space, these would just represent different stages of the same thing, while gravity would be the emergent property.

Space and time are dimensions - the three spacial (x, y, z) and one time (t). Matter and energy essentially the same thing (E=mc^2). Matter and energy exists within the dimensions. The spacial dimensions are expanding, and accelerating in expansion.

 

[sushi]

My newest theory is space is either the cup (container) or the water (substance) inside

the shape of water depends on the container, that is the same with space.

it is physical space so of course is similar to ether.

the opposition of ether is nothingness, which our current theories seem to support.

 

[sushi]

how does a point (spot) become (expand) into a dimension, space?

a point is 0 space, 0 dimension.
this is something else worth thinking bout

 

[Rebis]

how does a point (spot) become (expand) into a dimension, space?

a point is 0 space, 0 dimension.
this is something else worth thinking bout

if it does not exist in space it has no mass, therefore the law of conservation would infer energy (mass) cannot be created.

Which ether do you mean?