I had this conversation a few years back, and when someone asked me how there can be an end to space, whether in time or whether it has spatial boundaries, how could that be when space is nothing? I gave him an explanation that satisfied him. I don't know how much it satisfies me.

Space itself has a structure. There is literally no "space" without that structure. I don't remember completely what I told him. It's been some time. I guess there could be some kind of "space" outside of space, but it might have different properties or no properties at all. It might be fair to say that, especially considering the realities of dark matter, De Sitter space, and Planck level space, the speed of light that we measure is in no way an approximation of the speed that it would travel in "flat" space. It may be permissible for light to have a speed that is infinite in perfectly flat space. Instead, I think that we perceive light to have a certain speed because of the prevailing fourth-dimensional or multi-dimensional curvature of space, and while there is no totally static frame, there can well be an infinite number of reference frames that are close enough to each other to be treated as one reference frame within certain limits of precision. This is pretty much the same thing as accepting as accurate all tape measures produced by a good company. They may disagree with each other by a thousandth of an inch or more, but that's close enough to build a house. They are perfectly good instruments to use when building a structure with long-term stability.

If we count all physical laws as being based on the speed of light, an infinite speed of light, that speed based on the natural rate at which space propagates disturbances created by movements of mass and energy, then would we perceive much smaller spaces between physical objects? That is still an open question.

Space may be responsible for keeping ratio and distance of objects constant.

If matter/energy is the inverse of space and matter/energy(e=mc2) is relative then it is reasonable to assume space is relative too. Relative in dimensions and proportions. Relativity is in concept of ratios, and since there is no finite qualitative and quantitative idea in ratios it's reasonable to assume space is the reason and space itself is infinite for this to happen. Space relativity is what make all ratios approach infinitely near as they simultenouly spreads infinitely far apart.

Space and Time are expressions of universal fragmentation, due to entropy. They are both part of the same phenomenon of interpretation, using sensual stimuli. In other words, they are abstractions or models created by the mind (Or existing a priori as Kant contended, synthesized with sensual stimuli to create an abstraction of Reality).

They represent arbitrary points which our mind uses to navigate through ‘reality’ (change, flux).
One can say dimensions are the grid reference points that are used to approximate a point in Space/Time.

Time and Space are non-specific. They lack definite (absolute) existence, since both the Now (temporal point) and the Here (spatial point) are none existent.

If they were actual they would cease becoming and would Be - Singularity. In this case they would be outside the universal flux continuum – lacking dimensions - and so would be non-existent.

In mathematical terms the number 1 is also a construct with no definite meaning, since there is never a 1 but a process of trying to become a 1, as there is no Being but a process of Becoming.

Flux, change, is an expression of entropic decay, where the mind is never in a state of Being or in a Here or in a Now or never attains Oneness (Self) but is in a constant state of attaining it.

This is why the Here, the Now, the Self, can only be defined as an imprecise point in the past - before entropy has altered it -, arbitrarily interpreted and limited between two events { }.
The essence of existence, as Sartre said inlfuenced by Heiddeger, is Nothingness.

Perhaps this imprecision is due to the minds lack of analytical processing ability, forcing it to simplify the information it receives via sensual stimulations into imprecise abstract interpretations lacking detail and precision.
Perhaps the Flux itself disallows precision, since by the time the mind processes all the information into an abstraction the original conditions have altered and are no longer ‘true’. So, the mind in order to keep up with the Flux simplifies and hastily constructs abstract models with whatever information it manages to gather and analyze and comprehend (find patterns in).

The mind, being in a constant state of flux, as it is part of the entropic decay itself, can only order things backwards, looking back after they have occurred, and so can only perceive reality linearly, creating the temporal conditions of consciousness.

As entropy increases the stimuli increase and are harder to interpret and use to create abstract models of reality - it becomes more difficult to perrcieve patters in the information. The universe becomes more complicated and so appears Chaotic.

This is one way of discerning intelligence. The more intelligent mind can incorporate more information in its abstractions whereas to the less intelligent mind it will appear chaotic or imprecise (general).
Here intelligence is defined as analytical ability.

We are told that the Forces fragmented (Strong Force, Weak force, Electromagnetic Force, Gravitational Force) after the Big Bang and along with them dimensions fragmented into 4, or theoretically 10. So Time and Space are the same phenomenon interpreted by the mind in different ways, or perhaps part of the innate way the mind is meant to interpret said phenomena.

Space and Time are expressions of universal fragmentation, due to entropy. They are both part of the same phenomenon of interpretation, using sensual stimuli. In other words, they are abstractions or models created by the mind (Or existing a priori as Kant contended, synthesized with sensual stimuli to create an abstraction of Reality).

They represent arbitrary points which our mind uses to navigate through ‘reality’ (change, flux).
One can say dimensions are the grid reference points that are used to approximate a point in Space/Time.

Time and Space are non-specific. They lack definite (absolute) existence, since both the Now (temporal point) and the Here (spatial point) are none existent.

If they were actual they would cease becoming and would Be - Singularity. In this case they would be outside the universal flux continuum – lacking dimensions - and so would be non-existent.

In mathematical terms the number 1 is also a construct with no definite meaning, since there is never a 1 but a process of trying to become a 1, as there is no Being but a process of Becoming.

Flux, change, is an expression of entropic decay, where the mind is never in a state of Being or in a Here or in a Now or never attains Oneness (Self) but is in a constant state of attaining it.

This is why the Here, the Now, the Self, can only be defined as an imprecise point in the past - before entropy has altered it -, arbitrarily interpreted and limited between two events { }.
The essence of existence, as Sartre said inlfuenced by Heiddeger, is Nothingness.

Perhaps this imprecision is due to the minds lack of analytical processing ability, forcing it to simplify the information it receives via sensual stimulations into imprecise abstract interpretations lacking detail and precision.
Perhaps the Flux itself disallows precision, since by the time the mind processes all the information into an abstraction the original conditions have altered and are no longer ‘true’. So, the mind in order to keep up with the Flux simplifies and hastily constructs abstract models with whatever information it manages to gather and analyze and comprehend (find patterns in).

The mind, being in a constant state of flux, as it is part of the entropic decay itself, can only order things backwards, looking back after they have occurred, and so can only perceive reality linearly, creating the temporal conditions of consciousness.

As entropy increases the stimuli increase and are harder to interpret and use to create abstract models of reality - it becomes more difficult to perrcieve patters in the information. The universe becomes more complicated and so appears Chaotic.

This is one way of discerning intelligence. The more intelligent mind can incorporate more information in its abstractions whereas to the less intelligent mind it will appear chaotic or imprecise (general).
Here intelligence is defined as analytical ability.

We are told that the Forces fragmented (Strong Force, Weak force, Electromagnetic Force, Gravitational Force) after the Big Bang and along with them dimensions fragmented into 4, or theoretically 10. So Time and Space are the same phenomenon interpreted by the mind in different ways, or perhaps part of the innate way the mind is meant to interpret said phenomena.I don't think the essence of the universe is nothing.

Rather the something that was in a stable phase was 'sturred' there was a change, and the processes is trying to stabilise that change.

I think that non-change (thus stabilised) is the "rest", the existing equivalent of nothing, where the universe is in it's most desirable state.

Space is the feeling of distance that void needs to cancel in order to reach the infinity it rejects. This means that this distance can never be cancelled. Space is consciousness itself.

Well, it's the flux that makes space alive. There is some kind of flow that the curvature of space directs.

Space is what stops everything happening in the same place.

the dao,


the eternal force, wave your hand infront of your face, the emptyforce of existance itself, the form that is formless, the force that is traceless, the thing you will never see feel touch taste or hear as a human,


peace.

SPACE IS....
A Transindental fluid, which condescends to obey certain natural laws... laws set forth by the quality of the applied energy in creation itself.

-MT

I am happy that there are both physical and philosophical explanations of this. Like I said, I am unsure of being entirely satisfied with my own explanation, but what we perceive as nothing is as structured as what we perceive as solid matter. It's just a different kind of structure. There are rules of interaction. The extreme density of Planck space is of little consequence to matter that does not interact with it. We might even be perceived as a sort of "software" that propagates in Planck space according to certain rules.

There isn't such a thing as "inert matter" and I don't know why scientists would persist in promoting a belief in it.

Space and Time are expressions of universal fragmentation, due to entropy. They are both part of the same phenomenon of interpretation, using sensual stimuli. In other words, they are abstractions or models created by the mind (Or existing a priori as Kant contended, synthesized with sensual stimuli to create an abstraction of Reality).

I agree. But I wouldn't excatly use the word "created by the mind", more like used by the mind or works in synchronicity with the mind.

They represent arbitrary points which our mind uses to navigate through ‘reality’ (change, flux).
One can say dimensions are the grid reference points that are used to approximate a point in Space/Time.
Time and Space are non-specific. They lack definite (absolute) existence, since both the Now (temporal point) and the Here (spatial point) are none existent.
Apparently not so in mathematics but true as sensual stimuli only. But all knowledge is a form or growth from sensual stimuli(feeling) even mathematics. So it is impossible to derive what is existing and what is not, at least not without considering one's self as well. We are not seperate from the universe so its either the universe exists absolutely or its a constant flux of emotion/energy and we are just a temporal state of this emotion/energy
If they were actual they would cease becoming and would Be - Singularity. In this case they would be outside the universal flux continuum – lacking dimensions - and so would be non-existent.

As I have said I think its more possible to tell when things cease or begin than to tell what is real and what is not. Thus nothing is indeed "actual", which is the reason why physicist are having the toughest time with singularity-string theory

In mathematical terms the number 1 is also a construct with no definite meaning, since there is never a 1 but a process of trying to become a 1, as there is no Being but a process of Becoming.

Agreed, mathematics is an expression(language), and expressions are units of emotions. Mathematics are just smaller meta-units of emotions.

Flux, change, is an expression of entropic decay, where the mind is never in a state of Being or in a Here or in a Now or never attains Oneness (Self) but is in a constant state of attaining it.

True

This is why the Here, the Now, the Self, can only be defined as an imprecise point in the past - before entropy has altered it -, arbitrarily interpreted and limited between two events { }.
The essence of existence, as Sartre said inlfuenced by Heiddeger, is Nothingness.

Nothingness meaning of no meaning or use, of no constant state. I agree

Perhaps this imprecision is due to the minds lack of analytical processing ability, forcing it to simplify the information it receives via sensual stimulations into imprecise abstract interpretations lacking detail and precision.
Perhaps the Flux itself disallows precision, since by the time the mind processes all the information into an abstraction the original conditions have altered and are no longer ‘true’. So, the mind in order to keep up with the Flux simplifies and hastily constructs abstract models with whatever information it manages to gather and analyze and comprehend (find patterns in).

Such is reasoning

The mind, being in a constant state of flux, as it is part of the entropic decay itself, can only order things backwards, looking back after they have occurred, and so can only perceive reality linearly, creating the temporal conditions of consciousness.

Not sure I understand this or how this creates conciousness arrives

As entropy increases the stimuli increase and are harder to interpret and use to create abstract models of reality - it becomes more difficult to perrcieve patters in the information. The universe becomes more complicated and so appears Chaotic.

In some cases yes
This is one way of discerning intelligence. The more intelligent mind can incorporate more information in its abstractions whereas to the less intelligent mind it will appear chaotic or imprecise (general).
Here intelligence is defined as analytical ability.
Yep
We are told that the Forces fragmented (Strong Force, Weak force, Electromagnetic Force, Gravitational Force) after the Big Bang and along with them dimensions fragmented into 4, or theoretically 10. So Time and Space are the same phenomenon interpreted by the mind in different ways, or perhaps part of the innate way the mind is meant to interpret said phenomena.

Good idea

All this came from the question "How could there be an end to space and what is outside of it?" There could be a type of space that is truly empty but it could not act as space when empty. It might not have the fourth-dimensional curvature that would give it duration, which is physical distance in time. Matter might be able to give it structure when it gets out that far. It might not be quite that straight-forward.

What exactly "is" space?
Something immaterial which contains something material...

My Astronomy Prof said that the Universe is like an never ending Rasin Bread. The Galaxies and all matter are Rasins and little specks of Cinnemen, and the Space is all the dough in between. As this Rasin bread is cooked it expands and their is no limit to the expansion of the Bread.
This model of the universe doesn't really explain Dark matter very good, Perhaps dark matter is the oven that the Bread is in. And it doesn't really creat much of an explination for space, it just describes how the galaxies is expanding and why or how the bubbles of space, or distances between galaxies is accelerating.

space is nothing

truthseeker described it nice and simple,

non meterial that holds the material.



so how can science accept this?.

there is no proof empty space exists, because we cant examine it,

thats why this kind of scientific logic is flawed.


peace.

Space can be simply defined as the distance between two objects. Space can also be defined as a gravitational field. With that, we can say that the entire universe is a single gravitational field with varying pockets of magnitude, those surrounding objects of mass. To think of it in this way helps to better define space as merely a 'nothingness void.'

but dosent physics/science. tell us that gravity has to be created by mass objects, you cannot have gravity without a object to create it over time,

so this means by your logic that the universe must have a huge kind of mass object that created some kind of imense gravitation field wich seems to come from something we cant observe?.


explain the reasoning behind this theory please. i dont quite understand it,


peace.

It's really quite simple. If all objects in the universe were once together and expanded away from each other, there would have always existed a gravitational field between them, regardless of what state they existed (energy or matter.) The areas in that gravitational field that are stronger are those areas in and around the objects.

that is purely assumption and speculation, i wont dismiss it ofcourse, because its possible, but still it stays as theory untill a body can be examined.


peace.

No, it is the ever complex 'spacetime' metric in General Relativity that is a theoretical model of our universe.

the theoretical modual of our universe isnt our entire universe though is it?,


or have you some kind of proof to back that claim?, that the universe is one huge gravitational field? wich wasnt born from mass. ?



peace.

the theoretical modual of our universe isnt our entire universe though is it?,

Yes, it is.

or have you some kind of proof to back that claim?, that the universe is one huge gravitational field? wich wasnt born from mass. ?

I already said that above.

ok so show me how the universe is just one mass gravetational field, can i have actual evedence of the outer rims of the univers and deep space out in the cosmos far beyond any known galaxy?, show me the hard evidence please.


peace.

Try this for starters. There is an interactive java chart you can create your own universe based on those models.

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/friedman.html

yes i will check that out, thanks.


but do you expect me to believe this as proof?, im not a christian,
this appears to be fun to play about with, but plas little role when offering proof.


do you claim to actually have hard evidence? apart from test moduals and controlled simulations.

peace.

The presentation linked to a couple of messages up from this one mentions photons expanding with the universe, which would seem to predict "tired light" a la Halton Arp. However, if those photons do not exchange any energy with their environment on the way, their energy will remain constant. They won't look the same color here that they did at their origin, and that might make a difference, but we still won't get any color shifting unless they lose or gain energy on the way. This theory doesn't say they lose or gain energy.

When we do have a De Sitter or Planck space of extremely high energy density, and a universe of relatively much, much lower energy density, more than 10^90 less dense, and this universe is maybe 20 billion years old, I suspect that there will be a lot of livable universe hundreds of billions of years from now. More and more universe will unfold in a fractal manner, maybe even more and more universes, and the Planck energy space may be just one of an infinite number.

do you claim to actually have hard evidence? apart from test moduals and controlled simulations.

Start here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html

My thought is that space is the area that the energy has spread since the big bang.
It's just a theoretical thought though,.

Even the theory of totally empty space is a sort of mathematical theory. But if it were totally empty we wouldn't have anything, not even distance. Distance is more than just nothing. Equations concerning acceleration and kinetic energy prove that distance is related to energy. Even when we look at what seems to be very elementary mathematical entities and phemonena, there is something beneath them.

Dark energy, the space is not empty, it still has the charge of the cosmological constant.
I think that space is the area that the energy has spread since the big bang.

What we think of as space, yes.

Try this for starters. There is an interactive java chart you can create your own universe based on those models.

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/friedman.html
I have an odd question...
I observed in the right panel that all the universes always intersect at a single point. It's the point 0.0 (t-t_0)/t_Hubble and 1.0 R...

Why is that?

Hehehe.... BOOM!!! :D