What is Space?

From the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy:

The introduction begins like this:

"Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindboggingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space. Listen ..." and so on.

From my house hunting antics in Florida:

Space is more than one quarter acre.

From my daily driving experiences:

Space, or more accurately the lack of it, is the short distance between my rear bumper and the front bumper of the car behind me.

From an on-line dictionary, which probably is the best answer:

"The infinite extension of the three-dimensional region in which all matter exists."

Wait! My fish just feel out of my ear...

Space:

Regards, Greg

Were you as dissappointed with the movie as I was. It seemed that the director completely missed what made Douglas Adams' books so interesting and humorous. It should have been titled Mounty Python's Guide to the Galaxy. It seemed odd since the BBC did an excellent job with the radio and TV versions.

The gist of some of my favorite Adams quips (no quotes because I know they are not exact):

The Gortons are such a vile and vicious race that if one ever got their claws on you, you would wish you were never born, unless you are an exceptionally clear thinker, in that case you would wish the Gorton was never born.

Who are you? ... We're philosophers, but then again maybe we're not.

We found ourselves in a very bad part of town, the type of place they put bus stations.

Anonymous Hero said:
From an on-line dictionary, which probably is the best answer:
"The infinite extension of the three-dimensional region in which all matter exists."

...If there are extra dimensions, then, are they not part of Space?

And what if Space isn't infinite?

AstroNut asks: "...If there are extra dimensions, then, are they not part of Space?"

-----

No no no! These extra dimensions are part of Outer Space.

-e

Europium: Does the "Smiley Face" mean that you're kidding?

If we live in a ten-dimensional universe, as some cosmologists claim, then all of Space must be ten-dimensional, yes? If not - if our Universe has ten dimensions and Space has only three - then the Universe does not exist in Space, but Space exists in the Universe!

That can't be right. Ow, ow, ow. MY BRAIN HURTS

I haven't the slightest idea how that damn smiley got in there. I'm gonna have to report this to Chris!

See? There it is again! Now I'm getting scared...

-e

A. I don't KNOW that there are 10 dimensions yet

B. 6 of these hypothetical dimensions are probably shrunk down to invisible proportions.

Wow. I really can't wrap my mind around that concept. However, it sounds very impressive. Still, just because something has more dimensions (the universe in your theory) doesn't mean it cannot be smaller than something else (space.) So, your theory can go either way. The universe, with it's ten dimension could very well exist in three dimensional space. Wow. That just reminds me of the creator of it all...
God is truly a wonder! To think he made all that and still took time to consider me, save me and now attends to my every need just boggles the mind and makes a grateful heart.
Bless you for this question that reminded me.

Space, is a continuous quantity; for the parts of a solid occupy a certain space, and these have a common boundary; it follows that the parts of space also, which are occupied by the parts of the solid, have the same common boundary as the parts of the solid" this is the result of my personal study.
Just like human, space is evolving too. One known magazine published how the stars were born. They say, stars develop just like us, but the difference is the time period of evolving. Stars are part of space, anyway. Space itself is evolving around billions of years and still continuing the process everyday. Someday as the space evolved more than this time, it becomes more definable than now.

space is every place where there is not a particle like the area between the electrons and the nucleus of an atom. be carfull how you apply those demensions there are still only three dimensions to physical things other dimensions are more meant for intangible things like time.

"The final frontier" (with apologies to the late Gene Rodenberry)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space

Oh, that's good. Wikipedia does it again!

Space is that part of the universe that exists between the chunks.

Peanut butter is the stuff that exists between the chunks,

Therefore, space is peanut butter.

Got it!!!

But if Space is only between the chunks, then the chunks don't take up any Space!

Sure they do - the space that would be there if the chunks weren't.

I'd say some here have never accidentally followed a fat lady into Wal Mart...

-e

That was no accident!

No, but it was a gravitational anomaly. You should've seen the size of that event horizon!

-e

I used to have a college prof who was brilliant, but huge. He would move across the blackboard with the chalk in his right hand and the eraser in his left hand and his body would block out whatever was in between. Luckily, he was so massive that the light bent around him and we could see what he was writing.

I had a British physics prof who'd accidentally erase portions of the blackboard with his jimongous belly, so he didn't write on the board below chest height (I think so that he would not further accentuate the problem and embarass himself, more than anything, by erasing what he wrote). His girth limited his reach, as well. This was a problem he eventually overcame by using an overhead projector. And it was funny how he'd pronounce the word "joules." Sounded like John Cleese saying "jowls."

Some years ago my ex and I were waiting with my 5-year-old son at Logan International Airport (Boston) for my daughter to arrive. This was before non-passengers were forbidden to wait at airport gates for arrivals. A very, very obese woman waddled in and tried sit in one of the moulded fibreglass seats, to no avail. She eventually found a seat on a low table separating the connected seat sections. My guess is she weighed around 400 - 450 pounds. My son had never seen a morbidly obese person and was goggle-eyed in wonder. We quietly urged him to stop staring several times, at which point he left our care and walked straight up to her. Joe put his hand on her knee, looked her in the face, and asked, "Is all of that you?" We were mortified.

-e

Ok, is all this going to break out into a limerick?

You first. I'm chicken.

-e

"A brilliant young lady called Bright

Could travel much faster than light.

She left one day

In a relative way

And came back the previous night."

(Cluck, cluck, cluck.)

"There once was a couple named Kelly, who were forced to walk belly-to-belly..."

Whoops! Better stop there!

I can beat that. Several years ago I made the mistake of motioning to the bulging belly of the female half of a married couple with which we were aquainted, and asking her how she was coming along with the pregnancy. She immediately replied that she wasn't expecting...... I struggled greatly to maintain my poker face while making small talk for about another minute before I was able to excuse myself. I made my way across the room to my wife to ask her how to rectify my massive faux pas. After she recovered from the realization that she had actually married this boorish person, she told me the situation was hopless and that I was never again to speak in public, but instead, to pretend to be a deaf mute. She would handle all further social conversation.

Around the office, I've run into that problem quite often. My strategy is to wait to ask until they get larger. It's not foolproof, but it hedges my bet!

Respect! You cant knock kids for their honesty, and why should you? In fact, why should you be embarrassed? She's the one with the problem.

"Out of the mouths of babes..."

-e

Space is the essence of all we see and experience.
Space is three dimensional with a time vector that orchestrates it's evolution.
Four dimensions.
It is easy to split up the dimension sand reassemble into a multi-dimensional space.
These are science fiction antics.
what you see is what you got!

klsraina says: "It is easy to split up the dimension sand reassemble into a multi-dimensional space." ----- I think those are called "Legos." -e

So does that mean they own the patent on the Universe?

Space is the essence of all we see and experience.
Space is three dimensional with a time vector that orchestrates it's evolution.
Four dimensions.

But these frames of reference only describe two properties or features of the universe, space and time. It completely ignores matter and energy and since everything that ever was, is or will be is made of matter and or energy it is ignoring the universe as a whole.

I would therefore offer two postulates:

If we wish to call the universe four dimensional then the four dimensions that fully describe the universe are time, space, matter and energy.

OR

The existing concept of four dimensions needs to be expanded to five dimensions if we treat energy and mass as different manifestations of the same thing or six dimensions if we treat them separately.

If the first postulate is in fact the case and the four fundamental dimensions of the universe are in fact time, space, mass and energy then I would further postulate that;

Time and space may indeed be related to each other as well as mass-energy in, some as yet unknown, but equally elegant was as matter and energy are through the equation E = mc².

Just some thoughts, what do you think?

But isn't that just pushing the problem further backstage? We are now faced with defining dimension, and not just in an abstract mathematical sense of dimension being a mathematical "degree of freedom" or something like that.

This is why I am so very loath to define Space. No matter at what angle I approach the problem, I cannot escape the fact that every term and every concept at my disposal assumes an a priori knowledge of Space and its properties. And without such a knowledge, none of these terms or concepts has any meaning. And if any of these terms or concepts don't assume an a priori concept of Space directly, one of their progenitors does. There's no escaping this, as far as I can see. My mind is simply too finite to grapple with the problem.

At any rate, one test I would apply to any definition of any thing is this: if it is meaningful outside a concept of what it is defining, then it is not depending upon a knowledge of the thing it is defining and is probably a candidate for definition. Otherwise, we end up defining the thing in terms of itself, one way or another.

-e

You berate yourself about circular logic or having to rely on axioms, but you're on the right track, I think.

Space is a field that is the combined interactions of all matter, energy, and time or it seems to be heading that way. Try imagining how physical interactions unravel in space it may give us a clue.

Also, remember the Uncertainty Principle, Delta momentum is proportional to delta location. Also, remember that this was extended to delta time is proportional to delta energy!

Also remember that every time Einstein posed a thought experiment time was measured in the space that a pendulum (or other time keeping device) traversed. Conversely, every measurement of space was dependent on the time a pendulum took to pass through space. Is an entanglement materializing?

I wouldn't call it berating so much as my being cautiously conservative. Read some of the responses to your original post, such as one which defines Space as the volume... What? Okay, outside of a concept of Space, what does "volume" mean? What the hell is volume outside the concept of Space to give the concept of volume meaning? It doesn't mean a damn thing. Nothing at all! I'm avoiding that trap by being very, very conservative - the trap of saying the very same thing in a different way. That adds no knowledge at all and clarifies the solution not one whit.

To wit:

Q: What is 4?

A: 2 * 2.

Q: What is 2?

A: 4/2.

Do you see the problem?

-e

Yes. If I remember correctly, the first volume of the Encyclopedia Mathematica is spent proving that 1 = 1.

But to define space, I think we need to leave those everyday concepts behind. Leave volume to the guys that frame houses and pour concrete. We're talking about something vastly different. We're delving into the nature of existence, itself.

Bingo.

I guess I'd have to say my concept of space is axiomatic. I'd have to say I'm at the same stage in my understanding as the Ancient Greek philosophers were in their concept of matter. Atomos - indivisible. Los Endos. That's all Folks! We now know that atoms are not elementary - not axiomatic, as it were - and that they're made of smaller thingies. They, in turn, are made of yet smaller thingies. But still, we're no further along in our understanding of what makes stuff stuff than the ancient Greeks. We've only managed to push the problem further backstage by breaking matter up into smaller and smaller chunks. But what are these pieces made of? Who the hell knows?

Likewise, we can ask "What is charge?" "What is energy?" "What is time?" And so on. My old jr. high science text defined energy as "the ability to do work." Great. Now I know all about energy. I would have preferred - much preferred, really - an honest answer like, "We haven't a friggin' clue what energy is and neither has anybody else! You figure it out!" At least, that answer wouldn't have presumed to be an answer.

-e

It is with reluctance that I must abandon this thread, but I do not see an end anywhere in sight...no event horizon, so to speak, but I have enjoyed reading eveyone's comments and ideas, and have added a few wrinkles to my brain in the process.

I think a biologist in the 18th century spoke a deeper truth than he realized when he said:

" Big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite them, and little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum."
Swift, 1733, On scaling laws in Biology

The same applies for matter, IMHO.

...Eternity is a very long time. Especially towards the end...

Outside a dog, a book is man's best friend.

Inside a dog, it's too dark to read

And worse. Especially towards the End.

-e

I'd say that space is what allows things to have distance from each other, what keeps everything from being in exactly the same place. Depending on how you look at it, space may be a function of time and speed, that is to say once you have time and a certain speed at which things can interact with each other, space appears to exist. But really, these kinds of things are quite hard to define.

klsraina suggests: "that is to say once you have time and a certain speed at which things can interact with each other, space appears to exist."

-----

So, do you suddenly vanish into a single, mathematical point when you grab the paper and sit down to read in your favorite chair?

-----

klsraina further states: "But really, these kinds of things are quite hard to define."

-----

I think Klsaraina's posting has merit! If some energy suddenly turns into matter, then does the matter displace space, like an ice cube in water or does it overlay space? In other words, does space exist internal in the matter? Also, when the matter is created, space is warped! So space has to be something if it actually is affected by something else.

Perhaps space exists to separate things... So, was the primary effect of the Big Bang to bring particles and energy into existence or was it to create space and let particles and energy exist? Huh? Huh?

Hi k klsraina, your: "I'd say that space is what allows things to have distance from each other, what keeps everything from being in exactly the same place." reminds me of the "definition of time" I once read: "Time is what prevents everything to happen at the same time".

BTW, according to relativity theory, for a photon everything happens at the same place and at the same time! Glad not to be a photon!

Regards, Jorrie

Space is something that permeates all we experience.
It is the precursor to the essence of the universe itself.
It started as a space-time pulse that evolved into the universe and us.
It is like a DNA of reality.
Consider; A two solar mass star and a white dwarf.
The only difference between these two entities is the space that specifies what they are.
If you displace enough space from the interior of a two solar mass star it becomes a white dwarf.
The displacement of space is the only difference.
A white dwarf of diameter 100 km.
If you displace enough space from the interior to shrink it to 15 km in diameter it becomes a neutron star.
The sole difference among these three entities is the space they contain which specifies what they are.
The next step would be a black hole,if it could exist,
Though black holes are accepted by many prominent scientists I am convinced they do not and cannot exist
They are logical theoretical entities that can not stand up to rigorous,objective analysis. So there!

I'm still not sure whether mass displaces space or if mass exists permeated by space, and as a result mass warps the space that is permeated through it.

Also, I was surprised at my self-realization that the big-bang might just have created space-time and all the matter and energy is a side effect of creating space-time. Space and time may be the real actors on this stage, and matter and energy may just be the props... That's a humbling thought.

I too have some doubts about black holes. I wonder if matter could really crush itself into a singularity. Seems a bit too exotic. Then there's the problem that the gravitational field about a black hole is so strong, and slows time down so much (according to General Relativity) that if you had a very powerful telescope, you would see a veritable junk yard of stuff frozen about the event horizon. All of it making its way into the hole, but time dilated to the degree that it's all moving so slowly, one can't see the movement inward. Yet at the same time the stuff in the junk yard sees processes in the Universe whizzing by at high speed!

While this thread seems to be loosing momentum, I still think that this idea is worth pursuing. When we really ask ourselves "what is space," we realize how exotic and strange the Universe we live in really is.

It's common knowledge, if you research it, that Einstein wasnt totally convinced about his explanations regarding the universe, he proved that by admitting that his idea's were not compatable with quantum mechanics and his pursuit of a unified field theory, so why did science just decide to base everything upon it?

Because both seem to work on their own turf.

There was a report of an experiment in Scientific American were they set up an atom such that one of the electrons had such an eccentric orbit that it traveled about a meter away from the nucleus at one point, then as it fell back, it raced around the nucleus at its normal distance. What they found was that at a meter, the electron obeyed all the traditional behavior and near the atom it obeyed quantum mechanics.

So I guess it's not one or the other, it's whose backyard you are in.

Hi Vermin & Klsraina,

Do you realize that the idea of the big bang creating space and time and as a result allowing matter and energy to form, is supportive of my postulate that the four fundamental dimensions are space, time, matter and energy?

Part of what I postulated was that they were actually related to each other in a way similar to and equally as elegant as, matter is to energy, via the equation E = mc².

If the big bang created space and time and their creation formed the matter then they would indeed be related in a way similar to the way I postulated.

Do I detect a fundamental shift in Reality? Because until you posted your message the four dimensions were:

Really! Jorrie's gonna have to rewrite his epic tome. Again.

Poor guy. So overworked and underpaid as it is! For my part I think he should wait until Reality settles down before beginning anything new.

-e

Hi masu, your: "If the big bang created space and time and their creation formed the matter..." is not far off standard cosmic inflation theory, which goes something like this:

At about one Planck time (~10^-43 seconds), spacetime was created with very little average energy in it. Then, at ~10^-34 seconds, a quantum fluctuation released an enormous amount of energy that swelled this tiny region of spacetime to almost one meter across. At ~10^-32 seconds, a phase transition occurred that released some of the energy to be converted into matter (all very loosely speaking...)

So, if you drop your "matter and energy as separate dimensions" (they are really the same thing), your postulate may still win some more ground!

Regards, Jorrie

Jorrie,

How would a plumber describe ~10-43 ( I can't even write it on my computer) seconds?

Water Buffalo -

I think the correct plumbing term might be "one jazillionth of a second" but I'm not sure of the term, as I'm not in that fraternity - it might be "gazillionth" or "bazillionth" - I always get those confused. :)

In written form, as a fraction, you have a one on the top, and on the bottom you have a one followed by forty-three zeroes.

I'm not quite sure how plumbers describe anything, not being a plummer and all, but you can try saying "a ten-millionth
of a billionth
of a billionth
of a billionth
of a billionth
of a second."

On the flip side, if you were to thread a piece of pipe using a 3/4" NPT thread along the entire pipe's length so that, all told, you ended up with a total 10⁴³ threads, the length of pipe you'd need for all those threads would span roughly 200,000,000,000,000 Known Universes.

Now, think of that length of pipe being equivalent to the length of one second. At this scale one pipe thread would correspond to an interval 10^-43 seconds long, the Planck Time.

-e

Now, in Christian Plumber's terms, think of Satan & Co. being assigned the enviable task of cutting all those threads at the rate of one inch of pipe length per minute. When he finally completes his task 10⁴³ minutes later, the total dent he will have made in Eternity will be..um..(furiously calculating, bear with me)..zero.

-e

Thanks e-. That kind of puts it in perspective. That's not very much time. The big bang. Why does it need to be defined so precisely as to require breaking a second down to the zillionth of a second?

Because is scientists are correct, a heck of a lot happened in that first 10^-43 second!!!

Hi water buffalo, loosely speaking (such a nice term!), 10^-43 is a hojillionth of a hojillionth of a hojillionth of a second. This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_and_fictitious_large_numbers, used totally wrongly!

I think the 17 is actually a reference, not a power of 10, but as I said, such a nice term...

Jorrie

I think that "ho" part might confuse some hip-hop types here in the US. They might suspect you were some pimp daddy talking about a hoard of prostitutes...

Now eva since i can remember
I've been poppin' my collar
(poppin' poppin' my collar)
(poppin' poppin' my collar)
Now eva since i can remember
I've been workin' these ho's
En they betta put my money in my hand

(lyrics: Three 6 Mafia)

-e

I don't think you have to worry too much about hip-hop types catching wind of anything posted on CR4.

How about 100 zys, 100 zepto yocto seconds.

Strictly you are not supposed to mix the SI prefixes but a zepto second is 10^-21 and a yocto second is 10^-24. If you put them together you get 10^-45 so you need 100 of them.

I hope you mean outer space, let me try, hmmmm

I think we all belong to space, and space belong to all of us in this world and beyond. Though it belong to you , me and everybody in this earth and universe (anybody there?). we cannot buy it,sell it or use it,

But when we die we become part of space.According to Hindu scriptures, our soul mingle with space (cosmos) and goes for recycle (next birth ?),while our dead body mingles with the earth and goes for recycle.

Hope you are very clear now !!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK...

The man that makes it doesn't need it

The man that buys it doesn't want it

The man that uses it doesn't know it

What is it?

A coffin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You got it!!!

Didn't reach Nirvana on the last try, eh? Bad Karma?

-e

Es la suma de todas las distancias entre partículas....(is the sum of all the distances between particles)

Hi BERSAN, good first post!

Just one problem: the "Mr. E" that vermin referred to in his original post, would ask you: "the sum of all the distances between particles in whose frame of reference?"

He might also add that you should rather consider the spacetime interval between all the particles... No, gee, that's not possible - only works for events... Arghh!!

Tough question, Vermin!

Regards, Jorrie

If we based in the big bang theory of expansion, the knowed universe (space, mass, energy all in one) are in expansion too, in this way or thinking one measure of 12 inchs today is more big that yesterday (and more short that tomorrow), but for we measure the same, because the instruments for calibrate it are in expansion too. By that the distance between mass will be afected in a far future acording the same distances evolve more distant and measurables from other frame of reference who will only be imagine with the power of our minds.

The distance between mass?

no

But mass is mainly space!

Jorrie?

Jorrie?

Hi PWSlack, space? I would say: totally undefined!

Just check how Wikipedia struggles here...

Regards, Jorrie

Quite.

Jorrie says, "I would say: totally undefined!"

-----

Indeed. We can describe it, use it, explore its properties, even sell it, but we haven't the slightest idea what it is. And every single attempt to define it on this thread (and every other thread covering this subject) has used terms whose meanings depend on an a priori concept of space. I don't see how a circular definition can be avoided, so I think I'll give my brain to the valet and go watch TV.

-e

Scapolie said: "But mass is mainly space!"

A quibble: Mass seems to reside in point-like particles. The quarks and leptons in an atom may have distance between them, but the mass is in the quarks and leptons, not in the empty places between them. So although atoms and molecules and substances are mostly empty space, mass itself comes in very dense little packages.

Mass mainly occupies space.

Mainly? What does the other part do?

Scapolie says: "But mass is mainly space!"

-----

Hmmm... Might you be meaning that "matter is mainly space?" Subtle and not-so-subtle-and-very-significant differences between matter and mass. Your post is kinda like you declaring that you are your own wallet.

-e

Excuse my poor english, but if the mass is only energy in solid state, and the energy by himself dont have mass, existing in a form of cuasi-particle to particle transforming eternal process, where the mass only have meaning in fuction of the major or minor distence between particles, then the space is the sum of distances between energy forms than change in funtion of his distances....?

It's not your english I'm having trouble with. The trouble I'm having is with the concepts you put forth. You speak of mass, energy, and distance; yet all these things exist "inside" Space. But to speak of them as having some kind of existence outside of space has no meaning. It has no meaning because we, as humans, have no experience of something existing in a context of nothingness. None at all. We have never existed outside of a spacial context, and have never encountered anything that has. Someone could flippantly speak of the distance between two thoughts, for example, but what the hell would that mean? A definition has little value if it has no meaning.

Take distance, for example: can there be distance without a separation? Can a separation exist without being embedded in some form of Space? Is it meaningful to speak of distance outside of a larger something which makes the measurement of that distance meaningful? If so, please describe how this might be so, in some detail if you would please, as I haven't the slightest idea where to begin.

Do you see the problem? One big problem is this: every single definition of space we've heard so far depends on something whose existence - or at least, whose meaning - depends, in turn, on its "embedment" in Space, one way or another. Can you speak of mass, for example, without that mass existing in, well, Space? It's a vicious circle, mainly because the question is really more an existential question than a mathematical or a physical one. It's the stuff of nightmares - and philosophers' dreams.

Like I said, nightmares.

-e

How says Ortega y Gasseth (spanish philosopher) for thinks in the nothing you have to be something diferents of it. The only idea that the space contained in your brain its stuffed of ideas (linear ideas, you might thinks in distance between ideas) and thinkings right now is something that never has ocurred in the outer space before.

Dear BERSAN, I don't agree with all of Ortega y Gasset's philosophical speculations, and with some I do agree.

Kindest Regards,
-e

Then you disagree with Descartes too,

Descartes create the physics removing it, not of the experience, but of which it calls the "corps of the spirit" These truths, that do not come from the observation, but of the pure reason, have a universal value, and instead of learning them we of the things, in certain way we impose them: they are truths a priori. In own Newton are revealing phrases of that rationalist spirit. "In the philosophy of the nature, it says, it is necessary to make abstraction of the senses". Said in other words: in order to find out what a thing is, it is necessary to become from backs to her. An example of these magical truths is the inertia law; according to her, a free body of all influence, yes moves, it will move indefinitely in rectilinear sense and it uniforms. However: that body free of all influence is not known to us. Why such affirmation? Simply because the space has a rectilinear, euclidiana structure, and, consequently, all "spontaneous" movement that is not turned aside by some force will accommodate to the law of the space. The space is the same but in diferents manners....

"Then you disagree with Descartes too,"

-----

Please see Post #258

-e

There's nothing the matter with Descartes that a good blood-letting wouldn't cure. He may have had an imbalance of the bodily vapors.

This is starting to remind me of a skit in Monty Python live at the Hollywood Bowl. I cant remember all the words but it finished of something like

Descartes was a pissey fart,

While Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,

And Socrates was permanently pissed

If I remember it also had something about American beer being like making love in a canoe.

Masu writes: "If I remember it also had something about American beer being like making love in a canoe."

-----

More like making love to a canoe...

-e

Emanuel Kant was a real piss-ant...

Hi there Europium. At this moment my wallet is empty? Matter.....Mass, these are only the same as energy and what is energy? As of yet we do not know what is inside sub-atomic particals? If we punch a stone wall we hurt our hand, maybe even breaking a few bones, but it is not because of the solidness that this happens, it is the energy within the mass that stops our hand from going through the wall, this mass is only energy, and this energy is only space. Two magnets placed with their like poles towards each other repel each other, and if you look at the space between there is nothing, this space represents energy, but you cannot see it, so energy is space. If you touch somethig you can feel it is there, but there, is mainly space, so is space, energy, matter and mass really the same thing?

BZZZZZT!

(gawd I wish this forum had sound)

-e

NOISE...................................................................................................................................

europium said: "(gawd I wish this forum had sound)"

HAHA!! YES! Boy, I'd enjoy that. We need a gong-show sound, and a loud rubber "BOING", cuckoo noises, a cheering crowd, and maybe a gentle snore.

Of course, that would make it harder to surreptitiously check the discussion during office hours!

As a gag, my son gave me one of those "fart machines" for my birthday. It is radio controlled with a range of around 100 feet (30 m). I'm sorely tempted to stick this thing under the "amen pew" at church and light it off at some quiet point during the sermon just to see what's really under Bertha Better-than-thou's hood.

-e

And mass is mainly a thing that occupies space. Or does it?