What is space? And why don't scientists consider it to be the force that expands the universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChainBreaker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ChainBreaker

Guest
What is space? And why don’t scientists consider it to be the force that expands the universe?
 
ChainBreaker said:
What is space? And why don’t scientists consider it to be the force that expands the universe?
Click to expand...
Space, generally considered, is the area volume which contains physical realities, realities composed of some form of matter. That is how I see it. Science may view it differently.

Linus2nd
 
Al_Moritz said:
The question is very broad. I’d consult Wiki:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space

and more specifically:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space#Physics

As for “the force that expands the universe” I don’t understand what you mean by that.

Dark energy tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

but is not space itself.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the wiki references; i will look into it.

I understand that other forces are considered to be responsible for the expansion of the universe. What i don’t understand is why Scientist have never considered space itself as a possible force. If space is a physical object, then why do we treat it as something “passive” for lack of a better word. Space tends to be treated as something physical events are happening in.

Imagine if space itself was responsible for the expansion of the universe.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Space, generally considered, is the area volume which contains physical realities, realities composed of some form of matter. That is how I see it. Science may view it differently.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Do you not consider space to be physical?
 
ChainBreaker said:
Do you not consider space to be physical?
Click to expand...
Unless there is something physical occupying a boundry defined area it is merely an idea, a concept. Unless some phisicality exists nothing exists, not even space. God made two things which were not physical, the human soul and Angels. And " space, " without physical content is neither of these, it is non-being, nothing, it does not exist. Nor can it be reduced to one side of a mathematical equation, it is not a set of numbers on some clever graph.

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Unless there is something physical occupying a boundry defined area it is merely an idea, a concept. Unless some phisicality exists nothing exists, not even space. God made two things which were not physical, the human soul and Angels. And " space, " without physical content is neither of these, it is non-being, nothing, it does not exist. Nor can it be reduced to one side of a mathematical equation, it is not a set of numbers on some clever graph.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Heres what i don’t understand.
  1. Why you think the necessity of objects “in” space means that space is not a physical thing in itself (i think thats what you are saying. Clarify if i am wrong)
  2. Why you think the existence of space requires the existence of discrete objects.
I know that you say “Unless there is something physical occupying a boundary defined area it is merely an idea, a concept”, but this does not tell me that empty space involves a contradiction, it just tells me that you think there is a contradiction. In other words why is a physical object occupying “a boundary defined area” required in order for space to exist?
 
This is what i got from wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space thanks to Al Moritz

“Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction.[1] Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of a boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime. In mathematics, “spaces” are examined with different numbers of dimensions and with different underlying structures. The concept of space is considered to be of fundamental importance to an understanding of the physical universe. However, disagreement continues between philosophers over whether it is itself an entity, a relationship between entities, or part of a conceptual framework.”

So, interestingly enough, there does appear to be an ongoing debate regarding the ontological nature of space.
 
ChainBreaker said:
Heres what i don’t understand.
  1. Why you think the necessity of objects “in” space means that space is not a physical thing in itself (i think thats what you are saying. Clarify if i am wrong)
  2. Why you think the existence of space requires the existence of discrete objects.
I know that you say “Unless there is something physical occupying a boundary defined area it is merely an idea, a concept”, but this does not tell me that empty space involves a contradiction, it just tells me that you think there is a contradiction. In other words why is a physical object occupying “a boundary defined area” required in order for space to exist?
Click to expand...
With me it is a metaphysical/theological question and perhaps scientific as well. So called " space " is a part of the physical universe. Everything physical is composed of matter and form, therefore " space, " wherever one wants to apply this term, must actually be composed of some kind of matter and form. That would be the philosophical approach.

Theologically we know that God created the entire universe, the physical and the spiritual. Now God created something, he did not create non-being or nothing. Unless " empty space " contains some-thing, it does not exist.

Scientifically it is interesting to consider what Stephen Hawking said in Grand Design. He suggests that because of gravity the universe can and will create itself. It other words, in his view, the whole universe is a derivative of gravity. If his supposition were true it would imply a number of things. One of which is there is no where, no space where gravity is not present throughout. It has a further philosophical implication. If gravity is the ground of all physical reality then gravity would seem to be the prime matter which Aristotle defined as the ground of all physical reality.

I think our generation and the past three or four generations have been beguiled by the idea of space being a void or empty. We can thank Galileo and Newton for that. But as a scientific fact a void cannot be created even in the laboratory. Even there we find at least one hydrogen atom per cubic centimeter. And this would apply to the most " empty " parts of outer space.

On the other hand if Hawking is correct then there is no void since gravity is something, it is a physical reality composed of matter and form. It may not be composed of particles, but if not, then it is a kind of a uniform plasma. It would still be a something.

So if there is no matter, in the form of particles, gravity, energy, waves, etc. there is nothing. There is no such thing as " empty space. "

Perhaps I should have explained that " discrete particles " could also include the broad class of physicality I call plasma, a uniform reality of a single type spread throughout large and super large areas - like outer " space. " And this could be gravity, etc. as mentioned above.

Of course my argument does not depend on Hawking. I think it stands simply on its philosophical/theological suppositions.

Pax

Linus2nd
 
ChainBreaker said:
This is what i got from wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space thanks to Al Moritz

“Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction.[1] Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of a boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime. In mathematics, “spaces” are examined with different numbers of dimensions and with different underlying structures. The concept of space is considered to be of fundamental importance to an understanding of the physical universe. However, disagreement continues between philosophers over whether it is itself an entity, a relationship between entities, or part of a conceptual framework.”

So, interestingly enough, there does appear to be an ongoing debate regarding the ontological nature of space.
Click to expand...
There certainly is with me. As far as I’m concerned there is no physical reality in the universe called " space-time. " That is a purely mathematical entity, just as a Sphinx is a concept of the mind, it has no physical reality. And when we are talking about ontological reality we are talking about physical realities, things that God created.

Pax
Linus2nd.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
There certainly is with me. As far as I’m concerned there is no physical reality in the universe called " space-time. " That is a purely mathematical entity, just as a Sphinx is a concept of the mind, it has no physical reality. And when we are talking about ontological reality we are talking about physical realities, things that God created.

Pax
Linus2nd.
Click to expand...
But since we can move through space does that not imply that space exists? Doesn’t relativity imply that time exists?
 
Space is a word that describes a concept that revolves around the positioning of objects and the relationship between those objects and other objects.

Space is not a force. Its more like a canvas, in which objects and forces exist on, and move about on.
 
…when people say that galaxies and universes are spreading apart, that seems to mean that those masses and forces are being drawn to other masses and forces -maybe from another ‘big bang’ somewhere else. That has or hasnt blown yet.

…but i dont believe that there is an end point. There has to be something that is drawing the universe out. The thrust from our bang is probably only a half truth.
 
…there’s probably another big bang occuring somewhere right now. Maybe even several.
 
TEPO said:
Space is a word that describes a concept that revolves around the positioning of objects and the relationship between those objects and other objects.
Click to expand...
If space is just a concept with no ontology, then space does not exist. In which case it makes no rational sense for there to be a spatial dimension between objects. we clearly observe that there is in fact space between objects. In fact Physics has revealed to us that we are not so “solid” after all when viewed at a subatomic level.

Space is not a force. Its more like a canvas, in which objects and forces exist on, and move about on.

I could except that if it was not for the fact that space itself is expanding. The Big bang did not happening in space
 
ChainBreaker said:
But since we can move through space does that not imply that space exists? Doesn’t relativity imply that time exists?
Click to expand...
That we can move from place to place does not mean we are moving through " empty " space, it simply means that there is no solid objects preventing our movement. The " space " through which we move is filled with all kinds of matter, from air to gravity.

As to time, it is something we experience, it is no mystery, and time and space are two different things. Relativity has is productive uses but it does not define reality.

Linus2nd.
 
ChainBreaker said:
If space is just a concept with no ontology, then space does not exist. In which case it makes no rational sense for there to be a spatial dimension between objects. we clearly observe that there is in fact space between objects. In fact Physics has revealed to us that we are not so “solid” after all when viewed at a subatomic level.
Click to expand...
What do you mean “exist”?

For something to exist, means only that it is recognized by the human mind as being something that exists. But nothing effects space. It cant be broken down, it cant change and has no substance that can be measured. Therefore, it is nothingness.

Its only use in measurement is for establishing seperations between real substances… But i do wonder why things in outer space take on a spherical shape -as if there is friction between space and matter. Even the sun is spherical. 🤷 …but it is probably gravity that causes things to be spherical and not space at all.
 
And if gravity is the force that causes things to come together and take a spherical form, then the larger the mass the greater the gravity. And if the object prior to the big bang was as big as what it was, then it must have been a sphere too -and a giant one at that, with massive gravity… It would have drawn in anything near to it like a magnet… One of the things it drew in must have been its demise. Wonder what that could have been. 🤷
 
…and if the big bang actually happened, then how fast are we actually going through space? A google miles per second? We just dont know because we havent crossed any matter from any other big bang yet to measure against… Maybe our entire universe is heading for another mega-sphere right now, at a google miles per second, and maybe we wont see it until we are in it. Then we can be part of a second big bang.
 
I think the reason the big bang occured is because two giant spheres collided, both drawing each other in with their massive gravitational fields. Two giant balls getting closer and closer, increasing speed all the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top