Jump to content
Science Forums

Do you agree?


wepe

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by: wepe

do you agree, that space is 2 or more connected interivals with space between them.

??? how can "space" be two somethings with "space" between them?

god sure is smart to have created all of this...

AnyTHING that would design things the way they are would have to be considered a compete idiot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the way you said it is somewhat strange (you cant define something by using that something in the definition; it is a complete meaningless statement)

 

But if i understand you correctly: yes i more or less agree with you; how i would say it:

Space is the concept that makes sure that different points dont interact directly;

 

Bo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can think up at least three meanings of the word "space":

 

1) The "something" that fills the expanse between large objects in the universe (intergalatctic, interplanetary etc space)

 

2) The expanse filled by walls or other barriers (a room has "space")

 

3) A fundamental property of space-time, ie one of the basic constituents of our universe, which cannot be divided into sizes smaller than the planck length.

 

At this Google page there are endless other definitions:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:space

 

I agree with Bo - you need to explain what aspect of the term "space" you are referring to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bo: Space is the concept that makes sure that different points dont interact directly;

 

I've heard a similar, working definition: space is what separates objects of any size, making them distinct.

 

But then the author goes on to show how "spooky action at a distance" (nonlocality, I believe) invalidates his working definition...and I would think yours too (unless your "directly" means via direct physical contact; but if it does, it remains problematic since space separates things that don't interact through direct physical contact forces, but rather via field forces).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: TeleMad

Bo: Space is the concept that makes sure that different points dont interact directly;

I've heard a similar, working definition: space is what separates objects of any size, making them distinct.

This would encroach Zeno's paradox. Is it possible for "objects of any size" to regress to an infinitely small size? If so the space between them would have to be infinitely small. As such "space" could not occupy itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: TeleMad

 

Bo: Space is the concept that makes sure that different points dont interact directly;

 

I've heard a similar, working definition: space is what separates objects of any size, making them distinct.

 

This would encroach Zeno's paradox. Is it possible for "objects of any size" to regress to an infinitely small size? If so the space between them would have to be infinitely small. As such "space" could not occupy itself.

 

Why not? I see no reason space couldn't occupy itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: Freethinker

This would encroach Zeno's paradox. Is it possible for "objects of any size" to regress to an infinitely small size? If so the space between them would have to be infinitely small. As such "space" could not occupy itself.

Why not? I see no reason space couldn't occupy itself.

If it was "infinitely small" there would not BE any "Space" for it to occupy. The original premise was that "space" was the "distance between" things. And if "Space" IS infinitely small, then it would not even "be".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...