[afksf1944 (OP)]

Is this right?
How space is made;
 E=mc^2,
 m=vd (v=volume, d=density),
 E=vdc^2,
 therefore v=E/(dc^2),
 i.e. mass>>energy>>space (v)       
     mass to space conversion.   


                       E = mc^2 was confirmed by experiment.                   

[Bored chemist]

m=vd (v=volume, d=density),

Volume and density of what?

mass>>energy>>space (v)     

Not generally.

[afksf1944 (OP)]

Volume and density of what?

of the mass converted

Not generally.

how can this be proved?

[Bored chemist]

how can this be proved?

It's clear by dimensional analysis.
You can't say "mass is greater than volume."
1 kilogram of water is equal to 1 litre of water (very nearly)
1 tonne of water is greater than 1 litre of water
1 gram of water is less than 1 litre of water.

So mass is numerically greater, less, or the same depending on what units you use.
It's like comparing apples and oranges.

[afksf1944 (OP)]

It's clear by dimensional analysis. You can't say "mass is greater than volume."1 kilogram of water is equal to 1 litre of water (very nearly)1 tonne of water is greater than 1 litre of water1 gram of water is less than 1 litre of water.So mass is numerically greater, less, or the same depending on what units you use.It's like comparing apples and oranges.

The formulas I used are well known, tested and confirmed. No one can argue about them. They do show that' space is the result of mass / energy conversion and that is why the universe is expanding. The space converted is governed by relativity.

[Colin2B]

The formulas I used are well known, tested and confirmed. No one can argue about them.

correct

They do show that' space is the result of mass / energy conversion and that is why the universe is expanding. The space converted is governed by relativity.           

Incorrect.

Space is a place where ‘things’ are eg houses, cars, trees, planets. Each thing has a mass and depending on its density will take up a certain volume of space.
Take a tennis ball of volume v, it has a mass m, however if you take a lump of lead the same size as the ball it will have a volume v and a mass much greater than the ball. So by your calculations the lead has more space than the ball even though they occupy the same space, in other words, you are misusing the formulae.
What the calculations actually show is that the energy density (energy/unit volume) of the lead is greater than that of the ball.
What they also show is that as you reduce the amount of mass in a volume of space you reduce the amount of energy in that volume.

[afksf1944 (OP)]

V is proportional to E and inversely proportional to d. An object with higher  d has higher E and hence the comparison you made is not accurate

[Bored chemist]

of the mass converted

Yes.
And  the formula does not apply to anything else.

[afksf1944 (OP)]

Yes.And  the formula does not apply to anything else.
            
            

We are only considering a mass converting into energy here. This energy is then converted to space. We are talking about Energy to Space transformation. The formula generally indicates that space is a product of energy conversion.and energy is a product of mass conversion. 

[Bored chemist]

We are only considering a mass converting into energy here.

And everywhere  else- where mass is not being converted to energy- the formula does not apply.
How could it?

[afksf1944 (OP)]

And everywhere  else- where mass is not being converted to energy- the formula does not apply.How could it?

The formula should apply in all cases where high energy is generated as a result of nuclear reaction when mass conversion takes place because it is derived from such circumstances.
There may be other formulas applying in other circumstances.

[Bored chemist]

Even in the centre of the SUn it takes billions of years (on average) for an atom to undergo a nuclear reaction.
Your formula is true, but only for a vanishingly small part of the universe.

[Colin2B]

V is proportional to E and inversely proportional to d. An object with higher  d has higher E and hence the comparison you made is not accurate

No, your comparison is faulty because I specifically said v was constant and we were comparing 2 different masses.

We are only considering a mass converting into energy here. This energy is then converted to space. We are talking about Energy to Space transformation. The formula generally indicates that space is a product of energy conversion.

When mass is converted to energy eg light/heat there is no extra volume created. The mass goes to zero (because it has been converted into something else) hence its volume goes to zero. The energy is radiated away and the space it occupied remains the same.

[afksf1944 (OP)]

I can now see where I went wrong. The volume involved is the original volume of the mass converted and not the volume contributed to space.
I would like to thank all those involved for their valuable contribution.