A question worthy of reviewing:
Okay. It's an old saw.
Space is the interval between two or more events.
So, likewise, is time.
But there's a lot more to it than that.
It unexpectedly touches upon and evokes a lot of other issues.
If this post is a success you may accredit Freedom21 and (15 year old) Sergey500, if it's a dud, it's because I didn't ask the question interestingly enough. It's a bigger question than it appears to be for those who haven't pondered it at length. Perhaps it's time more people do so. No one should have any challenge fielding a rudimentary question such as that featured in this post's theme, right...
Freedom and Sergey prove that this - rudimentary - question can evoke a lot of unexpectedly complex, educational answers.
Distance in the universe puts you into the other's past. The amount into the past is called light distance or however long it takes light from origin(past) to destiny(future.) That is space-time distance(interval.)
Light distance is not a relative thing.
Light distance is not a relative thing.
Space is a medium for propagating energy and force. Gravity can alter the density of this medium. Velocity does sort of the same thing, but in a relative way by causing interaction with more space medium per unit of time. That is why motion and gravity give similar affects.
The 3-D space we experience is likely not the only sensible space that could be constructed. It's an intuitive view because our natural senses work within it, as we construct properties of inertia, velocity and gravity, but a moth creates a universe from a candleflame and will fly in circles because its senses create a space based upon angles to light, and if we used different metrics for space we could create a different view. I don't know how novel such a view would be but it seems that at least at very small scales we don't have a good understanding of space and time.
Time is created by detectable events. Probably 80-90%+ of our understanding of the universe comes from vision. Despite the claims, vision is actually 2 dimensional, so we see flat images (and touch is also 2-D, with the other senses being of a lower dimensionality). When you assemble a large collection of information, you can learn to extract an additional dimension from this information. So in effect our memory takes many 2-D visual events and using memory of what we perceive as time, we construct a 3rd dimension, but this all depends upon many human specific traits.
If you want to construct a space you need to consider at least a few things in determining what's the most sensible way to do it:
1) What events are you monitoring for information?
For example, if you use infrared or long wave energies then small details will tend to go unnoticed as the waves "blur" the information.
2) What are you attempting to model or predict?
If you can't construct a model of everything, then consider that limiting what you're trying to understand will make it easier.
3) Is it a dynamic space that can change? If so, then time can add another dimension for change.
You'll also be limited in how much information you can extract at specific time, so if the change is rapid and rather unpredictable and you only have a small amount amount of information relative to this to determine changes, then you're not going to have a good understanding of the 'current' state, as you're hazily following 'what was' instead.
You can plot these changes out over time and create another dimension to look at for trends, patterns, correlations etc.
4) How many independent dimensions are needed to provide an adequate prediction of events without creating unnecessary complexity? This depends a lot on the quantity of independent measurements. Adding a greater complexity without enough data to verify the validity of it is a waste - Occam's Razor.
For example, if you're simply trying to approximate the motion of a ball in the air under gravity, then you don't necessarily need a 12 dimensional model of subatomic physics to do it.
5) Does the manner in which you detect events place restrictions on what relationships will be easily extracted?
For example, if you're making observations from some fixed vantage point, then only those events visible from this will be detectable. You might find that indirect inactions. not detectable from this complicate the results, and also you can't be certain of the generality of the results as these measurements were only performed in one manner or from one location and so this may not be reproducible or be difficult to translate into more general information applicable elsewhere under different circumstances.
Anyway, I'd agree the space can be as simple a concept or as complex a concept as people want to make it. It seems there's no immediate danger of understanding all of it too soon.
Time is created by detectable events. Probably 80-90%+ of our understanding of the universe comes from vision. Despite the claims, vision is actually 2 dimensional, so we see flat images (and touch is also 2-D, with the other senses being of a lower dimensionality). When you assemble a large collection of information, you can learn to extract an additional dimension from this information. So in effect our memory takes many 2-D visual events and using memory of what we perceive as time, we construct a 3rd dimension, but this all depends upon many human specific traits.
If you want to construct a space you need to consider at least a few things in determining what's the most sensible way to do it:
1) What events are you monitoring for information?
For example, if you use infrared or long wave energies then small details will tend to go unnoticed as the waves "blur" the information.
2) What are you attempting to model or predict?
If you can't construct a model of everything, then consider that limiting what you're trying to understand will make it easier.
3) Is it a dynamic space that can change? If so, then time can add another dimension for change.
You'll also be limited in how much information you can extract at specific time, so if the change is rapid and rather unpredictable and you only have a small amount amount of information relative to this to determine changes, then you're not going to have a good understanding of the 'current' state, as you're hazily following 'what was' instead.
You can plot these changes out over time and create another dimension to look at for trends, patterns, correlations etc.
4) How many independent dimensions are needed to provide an adequate prediction of events without creating unnecessary complexity? This depends a lot on the quantity of independent measurements. Adding a greater complexity without enough data to verify the validity of it is a waste - Occam's Razor.
For example, if you're simply trying to approximate the motion of a ball in the air under gravity, then you don't necessarily need a 12 dimensional model of subatomic physics to do it.
5) Does the manner in which you detect events place restrictions on what relationships will be easily extracted?
For example, if you're making observations from some fixed vantage point, then only those events visible from this will be detectable. You might find that indirect inactions. not detectable from this complicate the results, and also you can't be certain of the generality of the results as these measurements were only performed in one manner or from one location and so this may not be reproducible or be difficult to translate into more general information applicable elsewhere under different circumstances.
Anyway, I'd agree the space can be as simple a concept or as complex a concept as people want to make it. It seems there's no immediate danger of understanding all of it too soon.
QUOTE (MDT+Aug 13 2006, 07:45 PM)
Space is a medium for propagating energy and force. Gravity can alter the density of this medium. Velocity does sort of the same thing, but in a relative way by causing interaction with more space medium per unit of time. That is why motion and gravity give similar affects.
Space density as gravity is backwards. The denser the space the slower you would fall through it due to its resistance.
Space density as gravity is backwards. The denser the space the slower you would fall through it due to its resistance.
space is by definition a volume or area defined by borders and restricted by the limits of that boundary.
I see no reason to stray from this definition as it has served me well.
I resent others invading my space but I am willing to invade other spaces in an attempt to discover new things.
Woody
I see no reason to stray from this definition as it has served me well.
I resent others invading my space but I am willing to invade other spaces in an attempt to discover new things.
Woody
Space is something moving faster than things that are in it?
It is aether moving at the speed of light. Catch up to it and space contracts and time slows; or Relativity.
It is aether moving at the speed of light. Catch up to it and space contracts and time slows; or Relativity.
Space is where you put things that don't fit anywhere else. 
QUOTE (That Rascal Poof+Jul 21 2006, 09:36 PM)
Space is the interval between two or more events. So, likewise, is time.
In general, the space is the gradient of Aether density. The energy spreading is slowened by the gradients due the underlying diffusion, thus the energy is following the energy gradients in the space.
For example, because of the sharp matter density at the water surface, most the energy of underwater explosion spreads along water surface (via surface waves), not by air or underwater. The foam can create the 3D space composed from surfaces (compare the (mem)brane paradigm of M-theory, Heim's metron concept, and so on).
By AWT during Aether condensation in so called inflation period of Universe a intimate mixture of less and more dense phase has appeared in the form of foam (similar to the process of condensation of supercritical vapor, please note the frame no 5 on the sequence above). Such foam creates the gradients, along which the most of energy inside vacuum is spreading in the form of light.
In general, the space is the gradient of Aether density. The energy spreading is slowened by the gradients due the underlying diffusion, thus the energy is following the energy gradients in the space.
For example, because of the sharp matter density at the water surface, most the energy of underwater explosion spreads along water surface (via surface waves), not by air or underwater. The foam can create the 3D space composed from surfaces (compare the (mem)brane paradigm of M-theory, Heim's metron concept, and so on).
By AWT during Aether condensation in so called inflation period of Universe a intimate mixture of less and more dense phase has appeared in the form of foam (similar to the process of condensation of supercritical vapor, please note the frame no 5 on the sequence above). Such foam creates the gradients, along which the most of energy inside vacuum is spreading in the form of light.
Hello All
If you are playing soccer and you have space, than the ball is passed to you.
Now! Space out there is the nothingness out there.
It has no boundaries, it cannot be changed, moved, controlled, expanded or do what you do with your rubbish at home.
Space on the other hand is the home of many different forms of matter or should I say phases.
The parts within space can be altered, contracted, expanded, curved. Its just that space becomes part of the medium and is thought to be also expanded and contracted, not the case.
But! thats my opinion. In cosmology with have many different opinions.
If you are playing soccer and you have space, than the ball is passed to you.
Now! Space out there is the nothingness out there.
It has no boundaries, it cannot be changed, moved, controlled, expanded or do what you do with your rubbish at home.
Space on the other hand is the home of many different forms of matter or should I say phases.
The parts within space can be altered, contracted, expanded, curved. Its just that space becomes part of the medium and is thought to be also expanded and contracted, not the case.
But! thats my opinion. In cosmology with have many different opinions.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.