[Tony Stanton]

I think you are close to the idea of what space is but you do not link in time.Spacetime is a single relative entity so time has to be included when ever we try to describe space.
See www.theoryofspacetime.co.uk for a description of spacetime that is very close to your description. My theory explains Spacetime and gravity in a simple mathematical way that you should be able to test for yourself. Have a read of it, I would value your opinion.

Tony Stanton

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by Tony Stanton

but you do not link in time. Spacetime is a single relative entity so time has to be included when ever we try to describe space.

No, my friend, I didn’t forget about it. When I analyze space and gravity, I assert that they are parallel processes, i.e. they are events, taking place inside time, i.e. time is meant, considered automatically, only its direct analysis is put off a little.
Space-time is the same as gravity-time, or rather universe-time, because the universe takes place within time as well. Even I can say that existence generally happens inside the time, and only nothing “can exist” transcendentally, statically, i.e. outside of “bounds” of time, i.e. time is constitutive attribute of existence.
Any action, i.e. any verb subconsciously implies time: to go, to come, to exist, to stay unmoved, to love, to hate, to expand and to concentrate, i.e. if somebody considers body (or space) a statical, finished, complete event, I don’t agree as I think that body presents itself a permanent process, as well as space, but they are opposite processes, consisting parts of the whole, and that the former presents itself permanent concentration of matter (continuing during time) to the center, but the latter – permanent expansion of rarefaction (continuing during time) from the center, and if I try to show any proving argument graphically, (even one phase of some process) one shouldn’t think that time isn’t meant in it.
But what is time itself? Does it exist on its own? We even measure it but can it be really measured? I don’t think so, but I wouldn’t like to obtrude my opinion on anybody, as I get crazy my own way. I think that before big bang existed only nothing (which didn’t exist within time, as time didn’t exist, and vice-versa: time didn’t exist because didn’t exist anything), but after it- 3-D space and time came into existence, as motion parameters:
And I definitely think that space and time are only indexes of change, i.e. existence of at least two different positions at once implies needing of space (for characterizing the difference, dissimilarity), as well as existence of two different conditions at once implies needing of time, i.e. time is succession of phases, the “direction of development of change” and it
-Doesn’t exist on its own;
-It is relative;
-It could be measured only roughly, approximately.
Even if you hurry up on food, you’ll get to the point of destination quicker than usual, so it will take you less time, but if you have a vehicle, you will get there quicker, but your speeding up will not reflect on the speed of spinning universe, and if I’m right (I don’t claim so) and this universe arose from one point, then speed is as illusion as time, as mass and as universe, because all eternally different points of it are the same one point, from which it had been born, i.e. if you have a perfect vehicle, you’ll cover infinitely far distance in no time, with the speed of “intention”…

Of course, I’ll read your theory and give my opinion of it in a nearest future.

[RascalPuff]

Dear Zeroca:

I've read your post and most of this thread. It is interesting in an unexpected way, but, what keeps cropping up in my mind is Hume's axiom:
"Nothing begets nothing".
But I'm not through considering your intitiation of this thread.

Regards
- RP

[Tony Stanton]

Time itself has nothing to do with motion only the measurement of time has a connection with motion. It is the arrow of time that holds the key to its understanding.
At present physics thinks of time as being a separate but inseparable part of four dimensional spacetime, three dimensions of space and one of time. I truly feel that they have this basic aspect of our Universe wrong. Spacetime is three dimensional not four dimensional which at first may seem a little strange but if I am correct then this gives an explanation for the arrow of time which is missing in four dimensional physics. It also gives an explanation for the existence of space which is also lacking in the way we understand the physics of this Universe at the moment.
If my view of spacetime was completely wrong then I would not be able to mathematically model the gravitational field of any object with mass but I am able to model gravity using this concept of spacetime just as accurately as Newtonian physics. Yet I do not use Newton’s universal gravitational constant which is used by every other known theory of gravity including General Relativity. As far as I am aware no professional or institution has ever achieved this.
One major aspect of three dimensional physics is that the math does not break down at the extremes of this Universe, unlike GR, which tells me that I may well be on the right track.
I can do this using only simple geometry which is all that is needed to model three dimensional spacetime.

Tony

[zeroca]

The first I’d like to say is that the whole universe exists within time, i.e. it can’t be imagined without it. As for space it isn’t homogenous “vacuum” within which all action (I mean all kinds of motions of solid and expended matter [of planets and suns] takes place), just opposite, I think that just space is the reason, the locomotive force that determines all kind of motion within universe

I will try to analyze briefly and roughly space without explanation of mechanisms:

Each solid body has its own space around it. This space I call figuratively space exp.bubble and it presents expansion by its nature. The central point of expansion (i.e. the center of it) and the center of solid body coincide. This expansion happens, lasts during the time permanently
Space exp.bubble makes solid matter to concentrate to its center (to the center of this space exp.bubble), but attracts solid matter placed outside its bounds, i.e. outside of bounds of space exp.bubble, i.e. central part of space exp.bubble is for solid matter, but its periphery (inside part of boundary) – for expanded matter.
Also Space exp.bubble of solid matter (i.e. expansion) repulses the same kind of space bubble, which is neighboring it (e.g. spaces of the Earth and the Moon repulse each other and serve as a barrier between these solid heavenly bodies against falling of each on another, and the space of each attracts solid matter of another)




Each expended matter (e.g. the Sun) has also its own space around it. This space I call space rar.-bubble and it presents rarefaction by its nature. The central point of rarefaction (i.e. the center of it) and the center of expended body coincide.
Space rar.-bubble makes expanded matter to concentrate to its center, but attracts expanded matter placed outside its bounds, i.e. outside of bounds of space bubble, i.e. central part of space rar.-bubble is for expanded matter, but its periphery (inside part of boundary) – for solid matter.



I.e. space exp.bubble and space rar.-bubble are directly opposite to each-other qualitatively
I.e. whole space of universe in the first place can be divided into rarefactions of Suns, as stars present relatively unmoved “points” of universe, i.e.
Suns present relatively stable framework of universe



Their disposition roughly can be imagined this way:



I.e. expansion happens within time
Concentration of matter within expansion also happens within time
Orbital movement of solids forced by Suns also happens within time…
Expansion of solid body spins along with body together...

Despite Suns' being unmoved points of universe, all orbital rotation of solid bodies is forced by them, i.e. this is the example of “active motion” – “active influence”, and so it also must be considered in connection with time…

[RascalPuff]

"Nothing begets nothing." - Hume

"You can lead a philosopher to water, but you can't make him think." - K.B. Robertson

[Tony Stanton]

The first I’d like to say is that the whole universe exists within time, i.e. it can’t be imagined without it. As for space it isn’t homogenous “vacuum” within which all action (I mean all kinds of motions of solid and expended matter [of planets and suns] takes place), just opposite, I think that just space is the reason, the locomotive force that determines all kind of motion within universe

I do not agree that the whole Universe exists within time. Time is a consequence of the existence of matter where space itself is being generated by volume. The rate at which matter generates space is what we experience as the flow or arrow of time. You cannot have motion without space but I do agree that space is not homogenous as such because for objects with a large mass the spacetime field it generates is retarded causing a warp of space which we experience as gravity. This is easily modelled using simple geometry without the need to use Newton’s gravitational constant.

I will try to analyze briefly and roughly space without explanation of mechanisms:

Each solid body has its own space around it. This space I call figuratively space exp.bubble and it presents expansion by its nature. The central point of expansion (i.e. the center of it) and the center of solid body coincide. This expansion happens, lasts during the time permanently

This is very close to how True Relativity sees space. Each object has its own spacetime bubble surrounding it but in the case of TR space is constantly flowing by volume from matter. If the Universe is only about 13.75 billion years in age then the spacetime bubble will have a radius of about 1500AU so gravity is not a force that works over an infinite distance. Only objects inside the spacetime field will feel its gravity which gives a natural explanation for the almost fixed rotation of stars inside galaxies and the appearance of galaxy clusters without the need to include dark matter. Although the distances between stars are far greater than 1500AU space has billions of particles of matter and larger objects all generating their own spacetime fields which means space is like a thick soup of fields where each bubble is linked to the next bubble. It is a bit like bubbles in the middle of a washing up bowl, when they rotate they will rotate almost as one.

Space exp.bubble makes solid matter to concentrate to its center (to the center of this space exp.bubble), but attracts solid matter placed outside its bounds, i.e. outside of bounds of space exp.bubble, i.e. central part of space exp.bubble is for solid matter, but its periphery (inside part of boundary) – for expanded matter.

Your explanation looses me a little here. First of all where is your space exp.bubble coming from?

Also Space exp.bubble of solid matter (i.e. expansion) repulses the same kind of space bubble, which is neighboring it (e.g. spaces of the Earth and the Moon repulse each other and serve as a barrier between these solid heavenly bodies against falling of each on another, and the space of each attracts solid matter of another)

I am sorry but I can’t see how that would work. Gravity is a distortion of spacetime which causes objects to follow the geodesic. This makes gravity an attractive force, albeit a weak one. Here you seem to be saying that space is acting as a repulsive force. So far I cannot see the logic in this so can you explain it better?

[zeroca]

Hello, Tony!
---Quote---
The first I?d like to say is that the whole _universe_ exists within time, i.e. _it_ can?t be imagined without it. As for space it isn?t homogenous ?vacuum? within which all action (I mean all kinds of motions of solid and expended matter [of planets and suns] takes place), just opposite, I think that just space is the reason, the locomotive force that determines all kind of motion within universe
---End Quote---

Originally Posted by Tony Stanton

I do not agree that the whole Universe exists within time. Time is a consequence of the existence of matter where space itself is being generated by volume. The rate at which matter generates space is what we experience as the flow or arrow of time. You cannot have motion without space but I do agree that space is not homogenous as such because for objects with a large mass the spacetime field it generates is retarded causing a warp of space which we experience as gravity. This is easily modelled using simple geometry without the need to use Newton’s gravitational constant.

According to me space and time and matter don’t exist without each-other: your expression – “matter generates space” we can exchange for the expression “space generates matter”, or rather “matter and space generate each-other” and I think it also is right as matter and space are two consisting opposite phenomena of whole, two sides of medal, two opposite processes happening inside time, at least I think so…

---Quote---
I will try to analyze briefly and roughly space without explanation of mechanisms:

Each solid body has its own space around it. This space I call figuratively *space exp.bubble* and it presents *expansion* by its nature. The central point of *expansion* (i.e. the center of it) and the center of solid body coincide. This *expansion* happens, lasts during the time permanently
---End Quote---

Originally Posted by Tony Stanton

This is very close to how True Relativity sees space. Each object has its own spacetime bubble surrounding it but in the case of TR space is constantly flowing by volume from matter. If the Universe is only about 13.75 billion years in age then the spacetime bubble will have a radius of about 1500AU so gravity is not a force that works over an infinite distance. Only objects inside the spacetime field will feel its gravity which gives a natural explanation for the almost fixed rotation of stars inside galaxies and the appearance of galaxy clusters without the need to include dark matter. Although the distances between stars are far greater than 1500AU space has billions of particles of matter and larger objects all generating their own spacetime fields which means space is like a thick soup of fields where each bubble is linked to the next bubble. It is a bit like bubbles in the middle of a washing up bowl, when they rotate they will rotate almost as one.

When I say that expansion happens, lasts within time, I don’t mean that it expends permanently, i.e. its volume is increasing permanently, but I mean that it exists within time with relatively stable volume (i.e. having of some volume for space isn’t rigid event but it’s a process), i.e. space around some solid heavenly body (which has relatively stable mass) has relatively stable volume (i.e. the main criterion of space of solid bodies is radius-distance and this radius is directly proportional to mass of heavenly body, so it’s relatively permanent for given example of heavenly body)

---Quote---
*Space exp.bubble* makes solid matter to concentrate to its center (to the center of this *space exp.bubble*), but attracts solid matter placed outside its bounds, i.e. outside of bounds of *space exp.bubble*, i.e. central part of *space exp.bubble* is for solid matter, but its periphery (inside part of boundary) ? for expanded matter.
---End Quote---

Originally Posted by Tony Stanton

Your explanation looses me a little here. First of all where is your space exp.bubble coming from?

As for where is my space exp.bubble coming from?
There had been nothing before arising of the world and it was homogeneous, uniform. The best way to imagine homogeneity, uniformity of the universe is to figure it as an empty three-dimensional space without even single material point in it. But it's impossible in effect and is possible only in imagination. The gravitation itself is always associated with body, which itself is associated with consolidation, or "thickening of substance". Arising of gravitation-that's the changing of homogeneity in direction of thickening; Just told above process of thickening centripetally is bearer of exactly that quality of homogeneity, a loss, or rather a lack of which afterwards presents a cause of arising of anti-thickening-anti-consolidation centrifugally, and that's three-dimensional space=a lack of gravitation=a lack of gravity, and is called and felt by us as an "empty space". So, space exp.bubble is organic part of body and they have common center…

---Quote---
Also *Space exp.bubble* of solid matter (i.e. *expansion*) repulses the same kind of *space* *bubble*, which is neighboring it (e.g. spaces of the Earth and the Moon repulse each other and serve as a barrier between these solid heavenly bodies against falling of each on another, and the space of each attracts solid matter of another)
---End Quote---

Originally Posted by Tony Stanton

I am sorry but I can’t see how that would work. Gravity is a distortion of spacetime which causes objects to follow the geodesic. This makes gravity an attractive force, albeit a weak one. Here you seem to be saying that space is acting as a repulsive force. So far I cannot see the logic in this so can you explain it better?

You know I’m not eager to convince anybody, but I don’t believe that gravity is an attractive force, specific for solid matter, i.e. I don’t believe that solid matter is attracted by solid matter. All solid matters have their own spaces around them; in case of solid heavenly bodies space spreads almost spherically from the center of heavenly body radially up to some distance (up to some boundary), i.e. space is directed from the center of planet to all sides radially. The solid matter which is found inside of this boundary is forced by space to strive to the center. The same space of solid heavenly body, let’s say of the Earth attracts the matter placed outside of this boundary (i. e. attracts the matter of the Moon, as well as the space of the Moon attracts solid matter of the Earth). Both spaces of adjacent solid heavenly bodies serve as the barrier against getting closer of these solid heavenly bodies (in case of getting of these planets closer spaces of both solids will repulse each-other and repulsive force will increase directly proportionally to lessening of distance between bodies)
All small solid bodies placed within the space of heavenly body have common space, i.e. if any small body gets into the space of heavenly body, its space is summed up with the space of heavenly body peripherally and this small body will try to take up its place centrally, i.e. will strive centrally, but that doesn’t mean that it’s attracted by heavenly body (or by its center)
I analyze this mechanism in thread “dark side of the Moon” on the examples of two elementary particles - prompting causes of spinning at starting stage.
Expansion (i.e. distance of space of heavenly body) is relatively permanent, but that doesn’t mean that its volume increases, i.e. expansion is force by its nature, i.e. only it’s responsible for attraction of bodies from outside of its boundary and for pressing of all solid matter inside it from all sides to the center

regards,
zeroca.

[north]

Originally Posted by Omni

@zeroca: "Nothing" doesn't exist so it can't be split. If it can be split then that's the proof that it was something and not nothing.

agreed absolutely

[north]

Originally Posted by Tony Stanton

I think you are close to the idea of what space is but you do not link in time.Spacetime is a single relative entity so time has to be included when ever we try to describe space.
See www.theoryofspacetime.co.uk for a description of spacetime that is very close to your description. My theory explains Spacetime and gravity in a simple mathematical way that you should be able to test for yourself. Have a read of it, I would value your opinion.

Tony Stanton

thats the thing however , is that in order to " describe " space one uses time. but the essence of space is not due to time but due the energy/matter within space.