Space exists, so it has to be something, it has to consist of

>>8006716
As far as physics goes, "space" is just a placeholder for "area".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space

It really is just a set of coords to represent a location. You don't actually affect space, you affect the objects in it. You can represent that as using an alternate set of coords to show that "space" has been affected.

>>8006716
Mass has an effect on fields which permeate space, but it doesn't have an effect on space itself. Space is just a place that holds all these things.

>>8006776
>>8006788
Even then, 'space' or 'area' is existent, It's physical in that we can perceive its presence because it has attributes like dimensions.

>>8006882
It's existent in the same way that a group of dogs is existent. It's a construction made by us that has no physical meaning - only metaphysical.

>>8006898
Then, what are the individual pieces that we combine together to form the concept of space? Dogs are elaborate constructs of matter.

>>8006898
You have no idea what you're talking about. Obviously space has massive physical meaning in physics. That's like saying R^3 has no mathematical meaning. "Metaphysics" has nothing to do with it.

>>8006716
Space is made out of cheese.

>>8006910
It's not made up of individual pieces like a group of something, but a (probably) continuous construction of different objects.

>>8006917
[math]R^3[/math] obviously has meaning mathematically, and so does space. But that's not a physical idea. I think you're confused between metaphysics and physical reality.

>>8006930
>continuous construction of different objects.
Objects that we know of or objects we've yet to discover? Matter, energy and so on aren't part of space, they take place IN it, unless it turns out that everything else is interwoven into the space-substance or something.

>>8006939
But, if there turns out to be another "space-substance" that objects are held in - that will just be called something else, this isn't what physicists mean by space. Space has no physical properties - it is simply a place where physical interactions take place, and allows us to see the relation between those interactions.

>>8006953
*describe the relation between those interactions

>>8006716
Read this paper: http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Lindner_LindnerBITtoITShort_1.pdf

He's published papers on it too but you need to pay (or have a school subscription) to read them.

>>8006962
>Henry Linder MD

Have you actually read his stuff? He's a crank.
http://henrylindner.net/

>>8006973
>he's a crank
I am not convinced by this argument. But out of curiosity, what makes you call him a crank?

>>8006930
>But that's not a physical idea.
Yeah, it's called an analogy retard. If space has no physical meaning why is it a part of physics? I think you have no idea what physics and space are. Only a retard would bring metaphysics into this.

>>8006982
> I was helped by finding Ayn Rand’s book, Philosophy: Who Needs It?
>Having read much physics

Both instant warning signs

> I created an outline of Cosmic organization—from physical, to chemical, to biological, to neurological, to psychological, and intellectual.
>http://henrylindner.net/Writings/Hierarchical.html
This hierarchy he has created is completely unnecessary, and completely trivial.
Thinks space is quantised, not foamy.
All his physics is complete bullshit.
>A degree of indeterminancy is present in all quantum particle interactions because electrons and hadrons are composed of electromagnetic waves—and any space is filled with waves of all frequencies from all sources.
This isn't why quantum randomness occurs
>So what we call “Science” is actually limiting our minds to merely describing and manipulating reality.
Doesn't understand the scientific method

These are just a few things picked out from just the start of his document. He's a crank.

File: hole.webm (288KB, 368x246px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 368x246px

>>8006995
>Yeah, it's called an analogy retard. If space has no physical meaning why is it a part of physics?

Yeah, like all the vectors that we physicists use, they really exist. All the brakets, path integrals, action formulations.
These are all mathematical tools that don't physically exist, but help us to describe the physical phenomena that we actually use.

Doing physics 1A does not mean you can chat with the big boys, sonny.

>>8006927
lmao'd

>>8007033
>Yeah, like all the vectors that we physicists use, they really exist. All the brakets, path integrals, action formulations.
No, they describe things that exist. Space is one of those things.

>we physicists
Nice bluff, but it failed.

>>8007057
Ok - so say space is one of those things. What properties does it have? Does it have mass, entropy, energy? Space is a notion that we use to describe the relationship between things.

This is an open philosophical question, though - and there are different views on it.

In physics, however, we treat is as a way to contain objects, and give a distance metric for their relationships.

>>8007097
>What properties does it have?
You will learn this if/when you get to General and Special Relativity.

>Does it have mass, entropy, energy?
Space is not matter or energy.

>Space is a notion that we use to describe the relationship between things.
Everything is a notion, this clarifies nothing. We have a model of matter which describes matter. We have a model of spacetime which describes spacetime. Physical models describe things that exist, otherwise there would be no point. Relativity shows spacetime as a Lorentzian manifold with intrinsic properties. You can't make sense of modern physics without referring to it as existing.

>>8007125
>You will learn this if/when you get to General and Special Relativity.
Yes, space is a manifold, with a distance metric that describes the relation between objects existing on it.
This is simply a mathematical tool which allows us to predict the behaviour of the objects.

Something you might recognise is the Bohr model of the atom. We know this is not correct, but we can still use it to predict certain phenomena that occur in the atom.
I don't think you know, but general relativity is not the correct model for our universe. We can however use it to predict certain phenomena that will occur.

>>8007165
Why does it allow us to predict the behavior of objects? How do you explain something like gravitational waves if spacetime does not exist? Ripples of nothing?

>Something you might recognise is the Bohr model of the atom. We know this is not correct, but we can still use it to predict certain phenomena that occur in the atom.
How is that relevant? The Bohr model is an attempt to describe something which exists, the atom. Whether or not our model of spacetime is correct is irrelevant towards the fact that it describes something which exists.

>>8007197
Gravitational waves are disturbances in the [math]gravitational\ field[/math]. This is the medium they travel through. The gravitational field≠space.

General relativity describes the way the gravitational field interacts with matter, and the effects of these interactions. This exists.

I don't think you understand it as much as you think you do. Try this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Einstein-For-Dummies-Carlos-Calle/dp/0764583484

>>8007215
You completely missed the point, idiot. A gravitational field is nothing but a description of mass/energy's effect ON spacetime. Now you've proven yourself to not know what you're talking about.

>>8007245
Wrong. The effects on gravitational fields are what the curvature of spacetime IS. These fields are the physical thing, being able to contain energy. You need to read a textbook on the subject. I suggest http://www.amazon.co.uk/General-Relativity-Introduction-Physicists-Hobson/dp/0521829518/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460753435&sr=8-1&keywords=general+relativity+hobson It's a very good text.

>>8007258
>Wrong. The effects on gravitational fields are what the curvature of spacetime IS.
That's what I just said, retard. Fuck off if you can't even read.

>These fields are the physical thing, being able to contain energy.
>Fields exist but space doesn't.
Do you even care what you're arguing or are you just so insecure that you can't admit you made a mistake on an anonymous imageboard?

Stop pretending you have even rudimentary knowledge in relativity. It's not working.

>>8007258
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field

>The fields themselves in general relativity represent the curvature of spacetime.

>>8007273
>using wikipedia as a way to argue points

>>8007267
Space-time curvature is equivalent to the gravitational field.

>Stop pretending you have even rudimentary knowledge in relativity. It's not working.

Is exactly what I would say to you. What training, if any, do you have in the field?

>>8007284
>rejects wikipedia because it proves him wrong
>won't post proof of his assertions though, because it doesn't exist
k

>>8007289
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
>All answers are provided by Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) for the NASA Astronomy Cafe, part of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program.

>>8007299
That doesn't say spacetime doesn't exist, it says spacetime doesn't exist independently from matter and energy. Within special relativity it is independent, within general relativity it is coupled with the gravitational field. But it exists in both.

>>8007360
Hmm... seems you've been misunderstanding the whole point. Physicists see space and spacetime as different things. Space cannot exist but as a way to group objects and show their relations. Maybe now you've seen that you were wrong?

>>8007373
>Physicists see space and spacetime as different things.
Where did I say otherwise?

>Space cannot exist but as a way to group objects and show their relations.
Space does not exist without objects but it does exist with objects. And it's not a "way" to group objects and show their relations. That is the measurement of space, not space itself.

File: dog-chasing-own-tail.gif (2MB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x300px

>>8007387
Aaand we're back full circle.

>Do you even care what you're arguing or are you just so insecure that you can't admit you made a mistake on an anonymous imageboard?

>>8007394
OK, so you have no arguments left and no response to the fact that you have continuously failed to read the argument correctly.

>Wrong. The effects on gravitational fields are what the curvature of spacetime IS.
>Space-time curvature is equivalent to the gravitational field.
>https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
>Physicists see space and spacetime as different things.

Again and again you write completely irrelevant statements. You claim we're "back full circle", but what's really happened is you never went anywhere with your argument.

>>8007399
No arguments left, because it's been made clear to you. This is to me like arguing against chem-trailers or creationists or homeopaths. The point just cannot sink its way through the defensive façade.
You came to this wanting an argument, not to learn. And now you have learned that you're wrong, you cannot accept it.

>>8007421
Where has it been made clear? Seriously show me the post. All that you've posted are fallacies and non sequiturs. If you can't even defend your opinion, why do you have it?

>>8007433
It's been made clear the moment you resorted to circular logic.

>>8007441
Where did I use circular logic? Now you are just making vague accusations connected to nothing. Just admit you are shitposting.

>Space exists, so it has to be something
Where did you get this logic?
That is not a true statement. Your very premise is false.

>>8007483
The premise "space exists, so it has to be something" is not true. Please justify or prove this statement. Otherwise your reasoning simply is not sound.

>>8006716

An interesting question OP.

I have no idea.Nor does it seem does anyone else.

I suggest beginning your search for answers with thought experiments. A couple of suggestions just off the top of my head.

Imagine yourself as a 2D being traveling through 3D. What do you experience?

Imagine yourself as a sentient being with no senses other than self awareness. What is your universe?

Now take the above and give yourself one sense, motion. How does change things and what is your Universe like now?

Space is when information is differentiated into interval upon intersecting lines of measurement?

I feel like we're all rewording the same thing. We're trying to use words/ideas like sets and subsets but no result/definition feels 'clean' because the concept of space in its broadest sense is philosophy and not math.

>>8006776
But you can affect space. Gravity does mass does i believe Because of the relationship between the 2 speed does as well. You cant but things do

>>8006716
>observed
No.
>measured
Yes.

It's called a vacuum. I'm sure some other anon has explained it already. Ctrl+F

>>8006788
So space is just a bunch of fields that exist between matter?

>>8006716
This is gonna sound halla retarded, but it's probably not the dumbest thing ever said on this board.

So we know that conceptual ideas like entropy (in the thermodynamic sense) exist. You can't measure it directly, but it changes physical measurable properties, and vice versa.

So knowing this, the idea that something like space can exist without it being directly measurable (not in the m^3 sense, but in the "made of units of space" sense) isn't too pants on head retarded even though it has an impact on physical properties and vice-versa.

Furthermore, there are equations connecting entropy with changes in physical properties, and I'm pretty sure the same exists for space because of relativity.

So OP is right in the fact that space can't be directly observed or measured or be made up of little packets of space, but that doesn't mean it can't exist without those things r...right?

>>8008129
No, the grouping together of those fields, with the property of distance is space. You're thinking about the vacuum.

>>8006882
Can you imagine space not existing?

The human brain is not a limitless computer that can grasp everything. We cannot (and probably won't ever be able to) rationalize some of the most fundamental notions of the physical world. We cannot imagine space not existing (no matter how much you remove, space still remains), just as we cannot imagine time flowing backwards (it breaks causality).

File: space-time.jpg (5KB, 225x123px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 225x123px

space
fifty replies
ctrl-f abstraction - not found
babblespace unlimited
zero epistemological foundation
the modern magical mindset
fiat science

>>8007489
Ok. Then, as we know, space itself has been observed to be expanding (due to that fact, the effective relative velocity of distant galaxies can effectively exceed the speed of light in space). What is space expanding within? Is it suspended within some meta-space unobservable to us?

File: tumblr_m6miay03or1rqnsdvo1_250.gif (4KB, 144x144px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 144x144px

>>8008574
time cube
4 day rotation
you have been educated stupid

File: 1447196157523.gif (929KB, 540x642px) Image search: [Google]

929KB, 540x642px

>>8006716
For all you know the cosmos could be totally uniform and all matter contiguous.
Space is pure potential, a hypostasis of being and non-being waiting to be received in a subject.
If a thing is here in such a way as not to be there, then space constitutes the potential of the subject being so there as it were.