OK, I again will try to consolidate a few questions that I have.

1) I was thinking about space and what is space. People here say that space is nothing. They give examples of expanding balloons and the like and say that space is just the distance between particles. I disagree with this. Space is the canvas that matter is painted on. ( heh ... well more complicated than that) Space is not nothing. When space expands it has a specific meaning. Space has properties. The space right outside a black hole differs from the space in the deepest void of the universe. Rates of expansion, curvature, temperature?? Space can have state. Space is not nothing.

2) Space is gravity. Without gravity there is no such thing as space. A true vacuum can not exist. Our universe or at least our visible universe is all connected because at every point in space there is some energy and some gravity. Space does not exist outside of this definition. Gravity not only curves space by it is space. Space and gravity and energy go hand in hand, one can not exist without the other.

3) Because matter and energy are conserved based on the first law of thermodynamics, space is also conserved. What does that even mean? That means that the total amount of space in the universe remains constant. Space can curve, but when space is curved other space needs to be curved to compensate for this curvature.

4) the perceived expansion of the universe is the compensation for the curvature from all the gravity in the universe.

Believe me tommac you will be attacked mercilessly for trying to define space. It has no definition. If you say it has energy someone will say that it is a vacuum. If you say that it is empty someone else will say that it is brimming with energy. If you go half and half both sides will attack you.

Mainstream science doesn't know or want to know what space is otherwise it means not being to wear a person down who is trying to understand what space is. That is how science works.

However if you add properly define space to your resume as well as the study of gravity you may well receive a Nobel prize for answering an unanswerable (so far) question. You will also make a lot of people very upset because they will have to think of something else to try and confuse people with so their jobs stay secure.

A bit biased perhaps ... let me think, hmm. No I have been posting for a year and a half in the against the mainstream section and it holds water.

Good luck, cheers

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

Now, this is just inaccurate.
Bold mine:
You're stepping off on the slim part of the branch at this point and, frankly, I really had thought you knew better.
I don't know exactly what bitterness drove you to make such a post, but I should think you need to Check It.

I'm sure you are well aware that is not how science works and that science - as a concept- is about knowing what space is.

The conflicts only arise when people speculate wildly without any supporting evidence, supporting mathematics to demonstrate, or operating under assumptions, misguided thinking or misconceptions that we already know to be incorrect.

I thought you said Science doesn't want to know?
Utter nonsense. Very few people out there have their job security depending on what "space" is made out of. This outlandish claim doesn't match up with reality and can only be a figment of the bitterness I asked about a moment ago.
This is like Conspiracy Proposing: The scientists are lying in order to keep their jobs.
Sheesh Apparently you don't follow many scientific journals!

Again Noonan, I really thought you knew better. I'm disappointed.

Perhaps some of your proposals are what didn't hold water.

(my bold)
I am quite sure I didn't say that scientists are lying. It is just that after a year or more on the outer I would like to see tommac get a pleasant run as he has a lot of really good questions and I do remember being given the run around. But then I am not currently looking to enroll in a physics course.

In fact space is surprisingly difficult from a quantum perspective based on the potential multiple universe theory of cosmology which means a lot of things that we would naturally think of as being real do not exist in our time frame.

Case in point the GPS satellites are about 11 seconds slower in real their time compared to earth based time due to not being in the gravity well of the earth. In a way it could even be said based on quantum particle uncertainty principles that it might even be doubtful they were made in the universe we exist in.

A bit far fetched, well every second all that we know goes through 10^44 Planck time intervals in which all movement is calculated. Can one assume the calculation holds true for something so far out in space and of the what of the Voyager probes. On that thought about the strangeness of space little errors change of protocols, variations in code and design all have to be considered. If communication stops is it a fault in our universe or the one that the probe originated in?

Space is not well defined and an accepted and highly accurate definition would indeed go a long way to advancing the cause of science.

And yes Neverfly I must be a grumpy old man today but every time I look at something that appears so simple it gets very complex. Either that or my circular thinking is annoyingly complex to someone who wants everything to be more simple, me.

Whatever you do tommac I hope it goes well for you and you enjoy it. Alternately there is an ignore button if I am too abrupt, sorry all

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

Yes, but claiming that "Science" or even Mainstreamers don't want to know is an inapporpriate response too.
Scientists want to understand the actual nature.

I'm alternating heavily between severe frustration and grumpiness and trying to cut it back with ill attempts at humor.

I don't see ignoring you as an option- but that doesn't mean I won't give you a swift kick when I feel it was warranted.
Tommac can do well if he sets his sights on learning. Not dreaming and then blaming the mainstreamers and 'arrogant' scientists when his dreams get rejected.
I'm sorry if I'm blunt- but that's just the reality.

These are outrageous claims to make. As Per the rules I hope youcan support threm and show ussome evidence or retract.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

No. I refuse to dig old dirt on anyone so as per the rules you will just have to apply to ban me. And I refuse even more so now than ever to retract.

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

Hey, you just had a birthday,

You should be worried about US digging the dirt

I am just glad when people take the time to read what I write. I must be an extremely frustrating person with such a different view of things. I do not want to go cheery picking members who I consider as friends all.

I believe in all walks of life if one is on the verge of discovery the last thing to do is blab the secret source of success. Also I do not know people in scientific circles and hearsay about secrecy although heard is hardly ground for proof but I do not want to roll over on this either. There are secrets in all walks of life, I got a few still.

And besides the post is in ATM so why wouldn't it be attacked mercilessly. Having said that I would get kicked out before trying to discredit or name anyone for saying what they think about me because it would be unfair.

Twenty months here has been great, its a good forum and good people.

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

What are the predicted observational consequences of the "conservation of space?

The warpage of space is gravity. No warpage, no gravity, but still space. There is a difference.

But, there could be places where the differing amounts of energy, from different points, would cancel out the warpage of space, at a particular point. Space would not be warped. Then you would have space with no gravity.

Mathematically, energy is conserved because of a symmetry in time. There is no corresponding symmetry for space, and thus no conservation of space.

Nope, all you have to do is solve the equations for a point in spacetime. Find out how all the energy affects space at that point. The curvature at other points have nothing to do with the curvature at that particular point, if the energy has already been taken into account.

See above.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Just a small nit-pick in the interests of maintaining accuracy:

As predicted by both Special and General Relativity, GPS satellites clocks tick faster, relative to clocks on Earth, by around 38 microseconds (38,000 nanoseconds) a day.

Does this mean you are on my side or neverfly?

Ugggg .... I dont blame mainstreamers for anything ... I just want to have the debate ... I blame people telling me to read books ( and not giving a particular book even ) rather than answering the questions ...

If you dont get it ... I am trying to learn the mainstream ... I just go about it a bit differently.

Well this is where it gets tricky ... the proof would be to take the gravitational field of the entire visible universe and divide it by the size of the visible universe and see if it matches the expansion of the universe ( with an opposite sign. ) would that be the cosmological constant?

Ok. So, what's the answer?

I disagree, space itself can not exist with out energy and therfore gravity. Energy not only warps space-time but it is space-time. You need to razor out the concept of space without energy as it is just too complicated and is not detectable. If it is not detectable then razor it out. In any case I dont think it can exist.


Again I disagree. remember we are talking about space-time ... so even if somewhere in the universe you could find a perfect 360 degrees of perfectly balanced gravity ... you still have its effect in the time dimension which I think would be the combination of all of the forces that made up the 360 degrees ... so the the will always be a scalar value for the time dimension.

space = energy ... space is part of energy ... the same way you can not remove the sun from the solar system you can not remove the space that was curved from the sun ... The only way to do that is to remove the sun.

OK I admit I am still working out the math on this one. But what I want to test is to see that if you curve space near an object does space have to uncurve somewhere else. The deal is that space is formed by energy as energy can not be destroyed space can not either ... if energy begins bending space more in one place then it has to bend it less in another ...