What's the Fabric of space made out of?

1. As an ID (intelligent design) creationist I see space as existing static boundless area in which everything in the universe exists. That is, it, imo, does exist, yet at the same time consists of nothing and is incapable of expansion/stretching.2. I discussed this space thing with Silas on the great debate thread following the buzsaw/jar great debate which can be read in the archives. If I understood Silas correctly, he contends that space consists of a "sea" of particles. I quoted a web site which agreed with him, but put it that space contained these particles, to which Silas seemed to pshaw as a poor usage of the terms. I still see anything, including particles as stuff existing within space and not as being inclusive in defining space. Silas will hopefully come on and correct me if I've missunderstood him in the above.3. My understanding is that the hypothesis of expanding space is based on the redshift effect of distant objects as viewed from afar. Others say it's the particles in the cosmos which causes the redshift effect. I know there's a lot more to it than this brief statement on it. Someone will surely correct me if I have missunderstood the positions here.Xeriar's quote here below seems to say it all. I say until it can be explained, it's suspect, regardless of the contention by evolutionists that it's scientifically substantiated.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-01-2005 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

1. Yes and I've not whipped up the Buzsaw Hypothesis for the occasion of debate here. It's been with me for decades as has been some other unpopular stuff. I don't work at being different. Since a kid I've read, thought and prayed a lot in search of truth, understanding, wisdom and knowledge. I believe God hears my prayers though the more I seem to come to understanding, the more at odds I seem to be with scientific and theological academia. I've not been educated, imo, to the point of having conformality of thought programed into my mind.2. The Buzsaw Hypothesis, though at odds with both BB science and YEC creationism, better satifies both TD 1, relative to origins and TD 2, relative to entropic tendency than either BB science or YEC creationism, imo.3. The Buzsaw Hypothesis, imo, is not only more literal Biblically than YEC creationism, but a whole lot more logical relative to the nature of God as put for in the scriptures of the Bible. I would welcome any YEC member to debate this. Yes. Absolutely. This's why creationists, for the most part get trounced here. They are, imo, neither Biblically fundamental nor do they have a better hypothesis than that of secularists. I attended a lecture by a PHD physicist (I believe he was from the Smithsonium Institute, but not necessarily representing their viewpoint) some 20 or so years ago at a College near me, lecturing as to how the BB could be God's method of creating the universe some 20 billion years ago. At the end of the lecture questions from the audience were opened up. I raised my hand and asked what God was doing for all eternity before the BB, 20 billion years being nothing but a teeny speck of time relative to eternity. He, of course, like the secularist had no answer to the [/i]before problem[/i]. ......And don't forget those scientific aspects of the Buzsaw Hypothesis, as per the Great Debate. It's not 100% theological. At least as much was debated about observed TD laws as was theology in that debate. 1. Ok, can we analyze these two statements of yours?Sylas quotes:
A. "I do not say "consists of"; but rather say that there is no such thing as empty space,"
B. "the 'vacuum' turns out to be seething with virtual particles."Aren't you saying, in effect, that space is seething with virtual particles?And aren't you then also saying either that space consists of virtual particles or that virtual particles occupy space? Which is it, and if neither, how so?This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-03-2005 00:25 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

Ok, now that we've established that these particles occupy space, doesn't this mean that space itself, perse is absolutely nothing but area in which things exist?

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. I was reading about this on the web and what I understand from what I read about redshift relative to the cosmos is that the longest wavelengths of the spectrum are red. Since the longest are red and the longest tend to prevail in the observation of it, the color comes out to be red. If I have correct recollection, the color red would be a factor. I'll try to bring it back up and reread if I can find it.2. From moon and sun models, what appears to be redshift could conceivably be produced from other than the space expansion redshift, could it not?Correct me if I'm mistaken. In the mean time, you've motivated me to do some more reading up on spectroscopy. Thanks. Mmm, isn't contending that the math of it, in itself is a sufficient model tantamount to a creationist contending that the complexity of DNA is a model of intelligent design of DNA? I go as far as I can with what I can comprehend and believe I've made some, I say some progress, thus far without the above. We'll see how you fare with countering what I've got up so far and we'll go from there. Maybe we can both edify one another to a greater or lesser extent. OK?

---

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

As I've long contended, imo, space perse, itself, is not made of anything. It's the universe's static unbounded void of absolutely nothing but existing unbounded area in which things of the universe exist. From what I've read on this, the more science delves into the answer to your question, since the more powerful the microscopes and detection devices become, the more becomes discovered as to the complexity and finiteness of the makeup of matter.Relative to my definition of space, and my understanding of the origin of matter, my answer to you is that matter is made of it's immensly complex consistency and exists within the universe's boundless space. All matter existing has come forth from the omnipotent creator of it, and has eternally been managed as to it's form of existence by that omnipotent incomprehensibly intelligent creator.

---

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

Buz statement: JonF post: What I was alluding to was whether the factors that make the sun and moon red when viewed through haze/et al could be an alternate possibility to what is interpreted as redshift since there are billions of particles, et al in the cosmos through which the light must pass.
This post is not intended as an attempt to refute your excellent post here on this subject or to refute your position supported by it. I need to do some homework before commenting on this post except to ask the above question. Is there a scientific name for the red moon/sun event?I see the difference in the spectrum for redshift and that of the sun event as per your charts. Isn't the redshift event suppose to be detectable only as applied to objects of great distances in the cosmos?

---

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

If there were the possibility of a model of space with absolutely nothing in it, how would the curvature of it be measured, detected or otherwise observed when there's absolutely nothing to be observed? My argument implicates that alleged curvature and expansion of space is a missinterpretation of stuff occupying space as being observed.

---

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

Thanks for your response, Sylas. The problem I see in your explanation is that you are, before doing things in/with space adding things like circle boundaries, light, gravity, magnatism, et al relative to your work of measurement and your observation and conclusions. If the universe had none of the above in it and absolutely nothing else, including nothing to make it bounded/bind it, i.e. boundless void, what is there to do anything like curving and stretching. For example, how could there be anything to effect gravitation in an absolute boundless void? As per your explanation it appears that your measurements and observations of space is relative to the items you mentioned in that explanation.Maybe I need to clarify my statement here......
"My argument implicates that alleged curvature and expansion of space is a missinterpretation of that which occupies space as being observed.".......to this:My argument implicates that alleged curvature and expansion of space is being assumed relative to specified bounded areas of it being studied or relative to the area of space, in which things like light, gravity, et al exist.Thanks for the "Foundations" link. I've got it into my favorites for some reading.

---

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

Thanks much, my friend, for going to the work of explanation here. Coupled with Jon's post, it should be a help in my study of this interesting topic relative to space. I've not grasped enough for a sensible response to it yet as for sure, I've got some homework to do on it.

Thanks again, Jon, for kindly spending the time to explain this. It's a lot to ponder, study and think on. Don't expect a response soon on this.

---

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