<m0nkey> ttm, well mass bends space apparently...
<TinPony> but if there were no mass around, we would not know if
   space was straight or curved.
<acausal> space is a mental construct. mass affects the way in
  which matter interacts, particularly concerning that property
  we call location
<ttm> acausal, if space is a mental construct. location is as
   well.
<acausal> i would say everything we consider is ultimatelyt a
  mental construct, but mass is _less_ abstract. space is
  superfluous given mass and location.
<acausal> people tend to treat space as an object, a physical
  thing you can stretch.
<acausal> while space is nothing.
<ttm> acausal, space is not nothing--you can't measure nothing.
   Nothing is no light-years across.
<acausal> ttm--i'd like to see you make a measurement between two
  objects without two objects to measure the distance between.
  it boils down to location of objects  and difference in
  location and how we perceive objects' relations to eachother...
<acausal> Without the material property of position to compare
  among objects, 'light year' has no meaning.
<acausal> space is nothing in and of itself. it's a way of
  thinking of things.
<ttm> acausal, to say space is a convenient way of thinking about
   position is one way of phrasing it, sure. So? That doesn't
   make it a smidgen less valid...
<laertius> mental constructs are things like property laws or
   legal fictions. Space/ time on the other hand is real, at
   least if einstein was right
<acausal> it makes it.. messy.. to say that you can 'stretch'
  space, or affect space itself in some way
<acausal> because it's not physical..
<acausal> to stretch space is to alter the newtonian mechanics of
  objects having certain positions..
<ttm> acausal, what do you mean, "not physical"? Is velocity
   physical? Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not
   there...
<laertius> acausal  space can be stretched
<acausal> to stretch space is to alter the newtonian mechanics of
  objects having certain positions..
<acausal> by relativistic means
<acausal> but it still boils down to interaction o objects.
  without objects you could never determine whether space is
  stretched or not.
<ttm> acausal, ah, but "determinable" and "existent" are not the
   same.
<laertius> acausal  in newtonian mechanics space & time can be
   more easily quined
<acausal> time is also a relationship :)
<acausal> ttm--it's faulty to assume the existence of something
  you cant determine :)
<ttm> acausal, it's faulty to assume it, except provisionally,
   because you've no counterevidence and it makes your theories
   simpler.
<laertius> acausal space in newtonian mechanics can't be
   stretched, that notion doesn't even make sense there, except
   maybe as merely changing units of length
<Access> You gays who are talking about the stretched space,
   which is from Einsteins teories, and are built on hyperbolic
   mathematics, do you know hyperbolic mathematics?
<acausal> Hmm.  It MAY be simplest to make relativistic
  calculations under the paradigm that space in itself can be
  stretched. BUT it's not simplest to discuss space in that way
  because ideally youre discussing for the sake of relating
  objects to eachother (since space has no determined existence
  of itself it's useless to discuss space in and of itself)..
  which means youll be considering the  affects objects have on
  other objects anyway so to consider the affects they have on
  space as well, even though it's completely determined by the
  former, is superfluous. Unless youre actually going to get into
  the
<acausal> effects i mean
<acausal> ...the mathematics of it
<acausal> ttm do you agree with that analysis
<ttm> acausal, offhand, yes, but I wouldn't write off space as
   having real existence, if it made the math simpler. We want
   the simplest math that accounts for everything, as opposed to
   math that doesn't postulate things we can't detect exactly.

acausal's note: there were a few other threads, probably more interesting, going on in parellel to this that i weeded out for the sake of brevity and focus.
if you would like to see any of the logfiles on this site unedited or over a greater period of time, just ask me.

note two: i should have answered laertius, clarifying what i meant by saying that that relativistic space could be considered as newtonian space except with the ability to be stretched according to specific laws.

Richard A. Nichols III

-----------------------

Note three (later date):

I should have explicated that there is a clear distinction between the math itself, and the english terms and concepts that we attach to the math at various points.  You only NEED to make an association between the two in a) input and b) output, not within the mechanics of the static equations themselves.  Input = positions, velocities, weights, times; output = positions, velocities, times.
(no, position doesn't imply space.)

However simple the math in between happens to be, that is just a reflection of the simplicity of the aspect of existence that is in operation. It's not NECESSARY to attach an ontological meaning to mathematical elements that aren't the essential input or the essential output, and to do so introduces an utterly superfluous element, when it is one that is in principle not even detectable except via the realities attached to the input and output.

Flogiston, ether, and gravitons are all analogous to space in this sense, although granted the conceptualization of space is manyfold more intuitive/natural to us, on much deeper levels.  While my argument that space doesn't exist seems completely counterintuitive, perhaps that is because reality can't possibly exist in the way that we think of it anyway.

The way we inherently understand reality (the way that is most likely in terran evolution and most useful in organic manipulation of actuality) corresponds to newtonian mechanics.  Reality, on the other hand, corresponds to special relativity in its nature.  This is *NOT* a subtle difference with meaning only in extreme circumstances.  It is a quite fundamental difference that pervades -all- speeds.  Space and time are one, not two.  It is more-or-less incidental that newtonian mechanics, and a more-or-less instinctual outlook that corresponds to it, are marginally applicable at our familiarly slow speeds of motion.

(See spacetime.htm)

On the opposite end of the scale, quantum mechanics has different but equally counterintutive and equally fundamental implications.  Especially for one who believes in reductionism. I mean really, POSITION and VELOCITY themselves having no fundamental meaning as such?  REALLY!  And not to mention solidity.  Hmm, special relativity is all about positions and velocities.  It's no wonder that it's hard to integrate it with quantum science.  Are they still trying to figure out quantum-scale mechanics using a position and velocity-based paradigm? Tsk, tsk.

Action-at-a-distance, not in the quantum entangling sense but simply in the sense of gravity, magnetism, and static charge (and not to mention light), are plainly observable phenemona yet even these day-to-day operations can boggle us because intuition tells us that two objects should logically touch in order for one to be able to affect or push/pull the other.  Shows how much WE know!  And ironicly, even when two objects interact by collision they don't actually "touch" in any absolute sense; the subatomic particles of one repel the subatomic particles of the other before there is ever an actual collision.. (whatever a collision entails, there being no solidity on that level either).

So, how is it possible for a causal reaction to "leap" across empty distance to affect a remote object?  GEE, MAYBE BECAUSE SPACE DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST???

(I guess this makes us everything one big soup/continuum/dot/singularity of dynamic energy, and its attrition in our modality is such that it lends itself to the conceptualization of space as such.)

And one more thought.  compress.txt CLEARLY implies that space does not exist.  It would be COMPLETELY compressible. (talking about information-wise..)

-inhahe

<==