What's the Fabric of space made out of?

Sort of. But we've established more than this, in physics. We've established that space has a geometry, and that the geometry of space is distorted by mass. To say "space is absolutely nothing but" the area in which things exist is probably missing a few subtleties.Cheers -- Sylas

I just hope you can see by this dialog, how the ambiguous aspects of your space hypothesis can be very hard for some of us to accept. Like, whatever you mean by subtleties? seems to indicate that you're trying to have it both ways, i.e. that space has subtleties but doesn't consist of particles which occupy space, coming in and out of existence within space.It appears that your/mainline science's problem lies in that in order to stretch or expand, space simply cannot be absolutely nothing but whatever gives space the capacity to allegedly stretch/expand is unknown and undescribable.Not to lead off topic but the other problem I see here with these particles is that apparantly contrary to td law 1, billions upon billions of things are being created and destroyed in the universe continuously. That sounds very Biblical. The Bible tells of angels appearing and disappearing, Jesus vanishing through a wall, et al. The difference, again is the Biblical conforms to scientific td law 1, in that the vanishing Christ and angels never ceased to exist, but moved into another implied dimension of the universe, the metaphysical dimension whereas your hypothesis on the particles has them as becoming nonexistent.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

The Bible conforms to scientific law you tell us then the follow on has him moving into another dimension. Huh?What part of science is this 'other' dimension? I don't recall using it in my calculations.

I do appreciate it is difficult. One of the hardest things for some people to accept is simply that it does take so much time and study to understand the models and the data involved.Many people want their own intuitions and philosophical musings to have the same status as the physics they could learn about if they went a harder longer road of study. But life is not that easy. Ungrounded commentary is worthless. Trying to explain that the physics is complicated is sometimes taken as elitism; and I'm not sure how to deal with that.Mostly, I just don't worry. There are plenty of people genuinely interested in learning about this stuff; and I so I don't just blow them off with comments about it all being too hard. I explain, to the best of my ability, the bits and pieces I have managed to learn so far. I am also actively trying to learn more myself at the same time; getting to grips with the geometry and tensors required, at about the level of half way through an undergraduate degree majoring in maths and physics. I am working my way through The geometry of spacetime : an introduction to special and general relativity, by James J. Callahan (Springer, 2000).So no, I am not trying to "have things both ways". When you ask honest questions, I'll answer them to the best of my ability. If we ignore the rather off putting remarks about having it both ways, I will answer your implicit questions plainly as follows:Yes, the notion of space has subtleties. The major subtleties I am speaking of are that notions of distance and time are not the nice absolutes we are used to in normal experience. For example, you've heard that the circumference of a circle is 2*pi*r? Well, that is only an idealized result in Euclidean geometry. It turns out to be incorrect in real life, in the sense that the distance around a circle in space can be more than, or less than, 2*pi by its radius. The geometry of real space is not, in fact, Euclidean.We could explain more about this at many levels of detail. For a brief post, rather than a full lecture, it should be enough to point out that this is a feature of General Relativity; one of the most stringently tested scientific theories of physics, confirmed in countless experiments. Space has curvature. There is a subtlety for you, right there.Furthermore, this is not about particles. The virtual particles that occupy otherwise empty space are another matter entirely.So. Space does not consist of particles. Particles occupy space. But neither is space simply absolutely nothing but the void in which particles exist. It has other subtleties, like intrinsic curvature, and expansion over time, and so on; which are quite distinct from anything about particles.Now. Do you understand that this is nothing but me trying my damndest to explain some very difficult physics for you? Having it both ways indeed... cut it out buzsaw. I don’t deserve such remarks. No; this is YOUR problem, and a bad one. It is an observation, a discovery, that space has these unexpected attributes. This is not something that was dreamed up by physicists who had some kind of problem with your musings. Scientists developed this understanding BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE REQUIRES IT.We can describe how space expands, and how this is associated with mass and energy, and the experiments which prove the association, and much else besides. Science does not, however, have a private access to perfect truth. Of course there are still open research questions; on such things as the Higgs field, and the cosmological constant and quantum gravity and much else besides. None of this can give you the slightest comfort. It is profoundly irrational to just throw out everything we have discovered simply because there is still more to be found out. And yes, I do mean discovered. Not invented, not assumed, not ungrounded speculation. It is classic experimental physics, in the best traditions of scientific investigation of our world.Cheers -- Sylas

Brad, thank you! thank you! thank you! for reminding me of that book, The Fabric of Reality. I once attended a party, saw that book on a shelf, picked it up and proceeded to withdraw from all contact with other people for about an hour. I finally had to put it down and socialize, and somehow I managed to forget about it and I never got round to buying a copy.That's a wonderful book. Must order it right away.EDIT: If anyone thinks this is off-topic, it really isn't. That book covers just about every scientific or technological concept we ever discuss here, very much including the present topic.This message has been edited by berberry, 03-04-2005 00:34 AM

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

1. "Intrinsic curvature and expansion over time" says nothing about what space consists of, what space is perse or what qualities about it to render it capable of having the nature of intrinsic curvature or the ability to expand. In order to observe it's alleged curvature, the only thing anyone would be capable to observe are things in space. Right? It is impossible to see, feel, analyze or measure space itself. From what you've said it appears that any observation, analysis or measurement of it must be done relative to things in it, for you have not come up with anything intrinsic in it having the capabability of analysis of it. Your definition of space appears to be so far boiling down to curved and expanding area consisting itself of nothing definitive in which things exist. To my knowledge we have no curved or expanding model of anything that cannot be defined. 2. Why are you being so touchy, my friend? You and others here in these forums use phrases similar or worse than "having it both ways," relative to the statements of myself and others. What makes you worthy of special treatment? You have yet, imo, not shown any qualities of space which would render it capable of curving or expanding.It would be nice if we creationists were allowed as much leeway as mainline secularist scientists designate to themselves in coming to conclusions about the universe.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

While I certainly don't have even a beginning grasp of today's physics I can still remember way back in the late fifties when our master first introduced us to Non-Euclidian Geometry. Trying to understand (however poorly) the various branches of non-Euclidian Geometry, one where the sum of the angles of a triangle are always <180^o and the other where the sum of the angles of a triangle are always >180^o was, to say the least, intimidating yet for a young high school kid, exhilarating.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

In order to observe it's alleged curvature, the only thing anyone would be capable to observe are things in space. Right? It is impossible to see, feel, analyze or measure space itself. From what you've said it appears that any observation, analysis or measurement of it must be done relative to things in it, for you have not come up with anything intrinsic in it having the capabability of analysis of it. Your definition of space appears to be so far boiling down to curved and expanding area consisting itself of nothing definitive in which things exist. To my knowledge we have no curved or expanding model of anything that cannot be defined.

---

I'm not speaking for Sylas, but I thought of a way to explain this that might clear up a few things. We can observe the properties of space in the same way that we observe gravity. We can't see gravity, and gravity is not made up of anything. It is a force. However, we can observe gravity by the way particles or masses act inside a gravitational well. In the same way, we can observe the characteristics of space-time by the way that things behave within it.The expansion of space has resulted in a globe with flat sides. I can't think of an analogy or a better way of explaining it. Needless to say, physics defies common sense.

But gravity is something that can be clearly defined, is it not? It's force can be demonstrated experimentially. Gravity is something known to exist within space, but is not space. The alleged stretching/expansion and curvature of space/area cannot be demonstrated or modeled, so far as I am aware. From what I've read so far, here or any place else, space, imo, remains as absolutely nothing but area in which things exist and has no characteristics which have been shown to have the capacity of curvature, stretching or expanding.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

No. You are wrong. Gravity is the least well understood of the four fundamental forces in physics. However, we have made a fair amount of progress. That includes disproving the old notions of gravity from the nineteenth centurty and earlier in which gravity is merely a force on objects in a simple Euclidean space. Some of the consequences of the new gravity descriptions, which are most definitely demonstrated and modeled, include distortions of time and space; and curvature. Insofar as we can describe gravity, the best descriptions involved curvature of space.The very fact that space can be distorted shows that the simplistic model you are using is inadequate. You have already read plenty of stuff to explain this to you; I've written a fair bit of it myself. But you just don't understand it, and you apparently don't even understand that you need to learn a few basics to make sense in such a subject. You are absolutely resistant to education on this matter; and when you associate with with some kind of bizarre standard of fairness by which your random musings should be given equal respect with those of people who actually know a bit of physics, there are going to be some bad experiences involved.This is not about me reserving science to myself. I absolutely accept that there are many unanswered questions and real disputes in science. However, you are not yet at a level of basic comprehension for your comments to even be coherent, let alone sensible criticisms of well established physics.THAT is the main thing you need to learn before you can even start to make progress. Until you learn that you need to learn, you'll continue to be repeating howlers.Cheers -- SylasThis message has been edited by Sylas, 03-04-2005 20:52 AM

Thanks Sylas, but I am having trouble with the concept that entropy does not affect the dance of particles "at the end of all things when the clock of entropy has taken it's last tic" for isn't this dance an expenditure of energy subject to entropy too? My impression was that the end result would be absolutely static dispersal of all matter and energy, broken down to it's absolute minimal components frozen in time and space.I was just wondering if that kind of "vacuum" of {mass\energy} could initiate an inflation event, actually act to help cause it.And my image was more like an onion with each new universe filling the void left by the previous one in the course of it's expansion. This is getting too much like the religious solipsist "god made it that way 1 second ago" kind of argument. It also seems more like a shrinking of perception rather than an inflation of a universe imho. Why would there be a barrier between these universes?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I'm sorry, but until you can define space, showing imperically that it consists of something capable of doing expansion and curvature, I cannot accept that it does indeed expand and curve. In all due respect, Sylas, I have enough comprehension to see that you have yet to define space as anything but area in which particles, galaxies, forces like gravity, et al exist and until you or someone does, we'll have to disagree on what it is capable of doing. I remain in the camp that contends it's an area of total static boundless void until it can be imperically defined as more than that. To say that it alegedly has the characteristic of subtleness, says noting, imo, as to it's consistency and alleged ability to do stuff like expand and curve.
I will continue to read and study all I can on it with an open mind. Thanks for your responses.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-04-2005 21:30 AM

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

No, buz; you certainly do not have that much comprehension. And until you actually learn that you don’t comprehend you’ll never overcome your failures of comprehension.I have already said space is the region in which things exist; but that it has curvature in the sense of the geometry being non-Euclidean. I gave the example of Euclidean formulae for circumference of a circle being inaccurate in real life; that’s basically what curvature means. You appear to have closed your mind to that entirely, to the point where you don’t even hear the explanations you are being given. Progress and comprehension stops dead. It isn’t even at the level of real disagreement yet, just inability to comprehend.For example: you say you will only accept a definition which involves space consisting of something before you will accept the expansion or curvature of space.You’re out of luck then. The truth of the matter is that space does not need to consist of something for curvature and expansion to be meaningful. That is just an assumption you impose. Modern physics works just fine defining curvature and expansion and so on simply in terms of the metrics. A metric is a way of measuring separations of events in space and time. It’s all about the geometry.As for expansion; this means that distances in space increase over time. This can be a feature even of a completely empty space. At this point you are going to say illogical or no it isn’t, or something of that kind. Well, that opinion of yours deserves no respect at all, because you are so completely in the dark in actually comprehending physics or why you are so atrociously bad at it.Bottom line. Space does not consist of anything. Particles, and fields, and galaxies, and so on exist in space. Space is curved, in the sense that simple Euclidean geometry does not work. We can put a number on curvature, but that will require a lot of trickly tensor maths to give the full definition. At this level of definition here it should be enough to say that curvature means Euclidean geometry is inaccurate. Space expands, in the sense that separation distances between distant objects are increasing; faster than can be accounted for by any local motions. It’s all about geometry and metrics. All of this is stock standard classical physics, abundantly confirmed by many observations. The physics based on old Euclidean notions of a simple flat space have been amply disproved by those observations.Cheers -- Sylas

organza!seriously though. it's just big empty space with big rocks and gas bubbles in it. some of those being on fire. i guess it's just that somewhere outside that empty space, there's a terrifying nothingness with is more nothing than empty space. perhaps it is lawless perhaps it is chaos. and now i've dipped into poetry. i guess it's just lucky that we could probably never reach that place.

You know, Sylas, there comes a point to which one begins to notice that whenever this "comprehension" card comes up, your side seems to be stalled in debate.While I was taking a break from the forum, partly due to the flack I was getting from admin at that time, I had some time to take a test on my comprehensive ability. I did an online IQ test which I hadn't planned to make public, unless the occasion called for it, and alas that time has come. My score was 124, which according to the Lewis Terman charts is what he called "super superior," the next higher than "superior," and which according to the IQ test grading of the test I took, is one point below "post graduate," and this without the benefit of a college degree which most of you people likely have. This text seems to corroborate with the last IQ test given to me in the Air Force back in 1954, so thankfully, at 70 this year, evidently, contrary to some EvC town gossip, the ole man's not loosin it yet! My purpose in posting this is not to tout my intelligence, but to say that if I could comprehend that many of the models, puzzles, problems and such in that test, surely my comprehensive skills can't be so awfully deficient as a few of you admin people alledge from time to time when it appears to be on your ideological behalf to do so. 2. What you seem not to be, ahem, comprehending, my friend though, is that my argument is based on a difinitive space concept whereas your appears to be based on a vague foggy subtility concept of what exactly space is as per the topic op question of this thread. Your hypothesis has a vague non-definitive concept of the origin of space which fails to answer the op question whereas the Buzsaw Hypothesis difinitively answers that question. That is not to say my answer is imperically substantiated beyond question, but at least mine demonstrates enough comprehension about my argument to forthrightly answer the question with an answer that conforms to our experience with space in our own environs.Your subtile and vague concept of space hangs/hinges on your interpretation of redshift, as observed from billions of lightyears distant whereas mine is based on concepts based on factors closer to home as observed.
For example, a clear view of our moon has no reds in it, but introduce some haze clutter into the space between us and the moon and guess what? RED! Why? Likely, because red is the prominent long color of the spectrum?. I don't know for sure, but for sure, the stuff/haze/clutter between us and the moon is not red. My hypothesis is solidly in the camp that says redshift is due to the stuff between us and the distant objects, redening the appearance of objects of great distance somewhat like what we observe in our own environs. No. That's not an assumption of mine. It's been, at least, an implication of yours ever since the great debate's debate thread. Why else have you been adamantly insisting that space is more than absolutely nothing but area? Mmm hmm. Out with logic and in with the math. When you can't model it, simply obscure it in billions of years or eons of distance, concoct the math as per secularistic hypothesis, elevate it to theory, propagate it on the assembly lines of academia, publish it in the journals and malign nonconformists as cranks. ......And your model of the alleged expansion of "completely empty space" is what?
Until you can produce that, my friend, ole man buzsaw remains, completely in the dark and an atrociously bad physics dude. ....Being a man of faith myself, gotta love you people, for a number of reasons, but especially for your faith..... faith that is, far,far greater than "that of a mustard seed." .

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw