[Pincho]

What is space made of?

Space isn't "made" of anything. All science has at its root observation. We observe different objects(don't ask me what an object is). While it's not possible to define space in terms of simpler physical entities, one can think of if as follows: it is that which we use to describe objects, i.e. in terms of size and location. One can say that space is what we measure with a ruler and a property of space is that which allows objects to be different. By this I mean that by "different objects" it is meant that the objects are located at different places and has "empty" space between them, i.e. that which is the absence of an object.

There is book on this subject by Max Jammer called Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics by Dover Pub.

Also, a friend of mine has a web page on the subject at http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/space.htm

It should be noted that geometry is what we use to describe thing in space and is  branch of mechanics, not mathematics.

Of course it's possible to define space in terms of simpler physics. It's very easy. What you should say is.. "I find it hard to define space in terms of simpler physics."

[Ethos_]

Of course it's possible to define space in terms of simpler physics. It's very easy. What you should say is.. "I find it hard to define space in terms of simpler physics."

Pincho......May I suggest that you try to be a bit more tactful with your replies?

[Pincho]

Of course it's possible to define space in terms of simpler physics. It's very easy. What you should say is.. "I find it hard to define space in terms of simpler physics."

Pincho......May I suggest that you try to be a bit more tactful with your replies?

What you should say is.. "You are right! Space physics should be simple, because the Universe doesn't have a brain."

Whatever it is doing is the simplest thing that the early universe could come up with.

[Pmb]

Of course it's possible to define space in terms of simpler physics. It's very easy. What you should say is.. "I find it hard to define space in terms of simpler physics."

I didn't say that because it's not what I meant. It actually is not possible to define space in terms of simpler physics. All physics is defined in terms of two basic notions, i.e. space and time. We define everything else in terms of these two things. This is similar to the concept of a point in geometry and set in mathematics. These too are left undefined because they are the basic build lbocks onto which all else is built upon.

Take a look a that web site for details. It explains in more detail.

Newton wrote the following in the Principia

I do not define time, space, place, and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe, that the common people conceive those quantities too under no other notions but the relation they bear to sensible objects.

So while you choose to disagree with me on this point I rest assured that I'm in good company with Brehme and Newton, two of my favorite physicists.

[Pincho]

Of course it's possible to define space in terms of simpler physics. It's very easy. What you should say is.. "I find it hard to define space in terms of simpler physics."

I didn't say that because it's not what I meant. It actually is not possible to define space in terms of simpler physics. All physics is defined in terms of two basic notions, i.e. space and time. We define everything else in terms of these two things. This is similar to the concept of a point in geometry and set in mathematics. These too are left undefined because they are the basic build lbocks onto which all else is built upon.

Take a look a that web site for details. It explains in more detail.

Newton wrote the following in the Principia

I do not define time, space, place, and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe, that the common people conceive those quantities too under no other notions but the relation they bear to sensible objects.

So while you choose to disagree with me on this point I rest assured that I'm in good company with Brehme and Newton, two of my favorite physicists.

Ok science says that.. then science says that. Who am I to argue. I don't say that.

[Pmb]

You must know that they are defined. Anyway, Newton made a lot of mistakes. I don't like his attitude that completely destroyed science.

If that is your belief then please post the definition of space since you seem to be alone in your belief.

I don't say these things on whim but have given them much thought over the last 30 years and have a book or two on subject.

I eagerly await your response.

[Ethos_]

Ok science says that.. then science says that. Who am I to argue. I don't say that.

Pincho...........................But that's the problem, your points are all argumentative. If you ever expect people to consider your ideas, you'll need to express them in ways that are not seen as condescending. To date, you've shown little respect for the views of others, how can you expect others to offer you any consideration while offering them so little yourself?

[Pmb]

Ok science says that.. then science says that. Who am I to argue. I don't say that.

Pincho...........................But that's the problem, your points are all argumentative. If you ever expect people to consider your ideas, you'll need to express them in ways that are not seen as condescending. To date, you've shown little respect for the views of others, how can you expect others to offer you any consideration while offering them so little yourself?

Especially when it comes to proper nettiquette. One doesn't attempt to correct grammar or spelling. When I said to define a concept I didn't mean a word. To me space and time are concepts, not just words. That's why I chose that phrasing.

And one doesn't go around claiming thsat Newton made a lot of mistakes without being clear on what they mean by that. Newton was a true genius. We all make mistakes but to say that about his ideas is misleading. For what was known at the time Newton was spot on.

[Pincho]

You must know that they are defined. Anyway, Newton made a lot of mistakes. I don't like his attitude that completely destroyed science.

If that is your belief then please post the definition of space since you seem to be alone in your belief.

I don't say these things on whim but have given them much thought over the last 30 years and have a book or two on subject.

I eagerly await your response.

My reply does not help this thread. Only what you are used to reading in books helps. Most of science is about the psychology of the people reading the science.

[lightarrow]

My reply does not help this thread. Only what you are used to reading in books helps. Most of science is about the psychology of the people reading the science.

To read a book of physics is not enough to understand it. It have to be *studied*. After this process, one realizes why things have to be that way and not in another.
Some people don't get this difference because it has only read, and not studied, those books...

[Pincho]

My reply does not help this thread. Only what you are used to reading in books helps. Most of science is about the psychology of the people reading the science.

To read a book of physics is not enough to understand it. It have to be *studied*. After this process, one realizes why things have to be that way and not in another.
Some people don't get this difference because it has only read, and not studied, those books...

People never will get my theory until I program it, so I don't bother using it as an example.

Here's the example...

1 + -1 = 0

Nobody gets what that means (it's the answer to the thread), so read a book instead.

[JP]

People never will get my theory until I program it, so I don't bother using it as an example.

Pincho, we've asked you before to stop plugging your theory outside of New Theories.  Future posts doing so will be deleted.

[Pmb]

My reply does not help this thread. Only what you are used to reading in books helps. Most of science is about the psychology of the people reading the science.

To read a book of physics is not enough to understand it. It have to be *studied*. After this process, one realizes why things have to be that way and not in another.
Some people don't get this difference because it has only read, and not studied, those books...

People never will get my theory until I program it, so I don't bother using it as an example.

Here's the example...

1 + -1 = 0

Nobody gets what that means (it's the answer to the thread), so read a book instead.

Since when does nobody understand that exrpession. All mathematicians were trained on it. "-1" is the additive inverse of "1". It's the number you have to add to 1 to get the additive identity "0."