ask me about dual earth theory

Could you please define what you mean by "space"?

Could you please define what you mean by "space"?

what is unclear about the word?
it's the space (which einstein called aether) from which our three dimensions of movement are defined.

Ok, I really try to understand your conception of space. But I am not sure if I get it, what you mean by "thinner or "thicker" or "space has infinite speed".

As I understand, with "thickness" of space you do not mean something like spatial dimension.

Let me ask you the following.

If B is the "Thickness" of Space, can B=0?

Ok, I really try to understand your conception of space. But I am not sure if I get it, what you mean by "thinner or "thicker" or "space has infinite speed".

As I understand, with "thickness" of space you do not mean something like spatial dimension.

Let me ask you the following.

If B is the "Thickness" of Space, can B=0?

thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area. thing of a spring. the spring is a set size, but can be scrunched up, or stretched out: in the same way, the same amount of space can be stretched or compressed.
if b was zero, there would be no space. however, b can certainly get very, very close to zero.

the infinite speed point is only strange if you think of speed the same way it is for matter, which is clearly a flawed approach. it's not particularly important anyway, for more than advanced consideration.

thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area

Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.

Are the undersiders evil?

Are the undersiders evil?

it's the southern hemisphere, containing such places as australia, so probably.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:27:10 AM

thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area

Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.

it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:30:49 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:27:10 AM

thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area

Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.

it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.

You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:36:36 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:30:49 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:27:10 AM

thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area

Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.

it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.

You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.

you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.

Thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area.

Is this person actually writing using conventional English?  Why am I having so much trouble comprehending what he's saying in so many comments?  Has my brain taken its annual leave?  Are bears Catholic?  Does the Pope shit in the woods?  What's the price of bananas in Zimbabwe?

Your terminology is really confusing, for on one side you equal aether with space, on the other side you distinguish them, leading to statements like "in thinner space there is less space in space". But I see that the connection between them two is very profound. Is it like that:

If the thickness of space = the amount of aether in a given area would be = 0, that would mean, that we could pass through an arbitrarily large area of such an "empty space" within a time span t=0, so that the spatial dimension of this area would effectively be 0, too. So there is a direct proportion between the Aetherial Density and the effective Spatial Dimension of an area. Is that right?

But if so, wouldn't that mean that the observed Aetherial Density (AD) would always be the same? For the more we stretch the space, the smaller it gets for us, due to the inverse proportionality between the AD of an area and the time we need to pass it.

A spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it.

Shit... I'm betting Stephen Hawking's missed that critical bit of reasoning.  Better fire up the ol' carrier pigeon LOL.

t I think DET explains more than the generic Flat Earth Model and even RET.

Please tell me something which DET explains better than RET. I'm all ears.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:39:15 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:36:36 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:30:49 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:27:10 AM

thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area

Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.

it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.

You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.

you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.

Its density is still the same.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 28, 2015, 04:28:32 PM

t I think DET explains more than the generic Flat Earth Model and even RET.

Please tell me something which DET explains better than RET. I'm all ears.

There are alternative theories which you may find even more persuasive. My personal PET seems best.

Your terminology is really confusing, for on one side you equal aether with space, on the other side you distinguish them, leading to statements like "in thinner space there is less space in space". But I see that the connection between them two is very profound. Is it like that:

If the thickness of space = the amount of aether in a given area would be = 0, that would mean, that we could pass through an arbitrarily large area of such an "empty space" within a time span t=0, so that the spatial dimension of this area would effectively be 0, too. So there is a direct proportion between the Aetherial Density and the effective Spatial Dimension of an area. Is that right?

But if so, wouldn't that mean that the observed Aetherial Density (AD) would always be the same? For the more we stretch the space, the smaller it gets for us, due to the inverse proportionality between the AD of an area and the time we need to pass it.

on the whole, aether can be referred to as the same as space: in the same way that water is in fact a molecule, yet we call the liquid composed of billions 'water' also. it's only when we get to the small, technical scale that it's important to distinguish between the liquid water and its building block, or space and its building block aether.

you are correct, however. thinness of space means we can pass through an area far more quickly. use the speed equals distance divided by time equation. speed is constant, but distance shrinks (as distance depends on space). for a smaller distance, you'd need even smaller time.
you are also right that it is hard to directly observe the thickness of space. however, we can see its consequences. for example, as with all things, aether flows from areas of high concentration or pressure, to areas with less. this behavior we see in, for example, untied balloons: the high pressure inside the balloon rushes out. as such, we can observe the force imparted by the flow to determine where the thicker and thinner areas are (for example, the especially thin terrestrial aether within the earth, which causes 'gravity' and aetheric transmission).

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:40:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:39:15 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:36:36 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:30:49 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:27:10 AM

thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area

Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.

it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.

You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.

you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.

Its density is still the same.

exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.

to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 08:53:44 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:40:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:39:15 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:36:36 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:30:49 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:27:10 AM

thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area

Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.

it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.

You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.

you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.

Its density is still the same.

exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.

to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.

No, string pulled back is shorter than a string stretched. And also - string stretched and not stretched is occuping the same amount of space. Still, space can't be denser or not if it's not a matter, because, a term "dense" means an amount of particles on some square of some measure. Have you seen? Particles. And space is build from nothing material, but time.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 11:56:52 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 08:53:44 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:40:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:39:15 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:36:36 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:30:49 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:27:10 AM

thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area

Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.

it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.

You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.

you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.

Its density is still the same.

exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.

to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.

No, string pulled back is shorter than a string stretched. And also - string stretched and not stretched is occuping the same amount of space. Still, space can't be denser or not if it's not a matter, because, a term "dense" means an amount of particles on some square of some measure. Have you seen? Particles. And space is build from nothing material, but time.

of course they occupy the same space, they exist in space. this is analogy, it's never going to be perfect. similarly, i never said space was dense, that was an analogy as i said explicitly.
space is technically made of spacetime (aether, as einstein called it), not just time.

regardless, you're not addressing what i have to say, you're focusing on semantics. please can you read the post, and read it as it was written: as an analogy. i think the point is made quite clear then.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:17:20 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 11:56:52 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 08:53:44 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:40:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:39:15 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:36:36 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:30:49 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:27:10 AM

thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area

Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.

it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.

You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.

you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.

Its density is still the same.

exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.

to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.

No, string pulled back is shorter than a string stretched. And also - string stretched and not stretched is occuping the same amount of space. Still, space can't be denser or not if it's not a matter, because, a term "dense" means an amount of particles on some square of some measure. Have you seen? Particles. And space is build from nothing material, but time.

of course they occupy the same space, they exist in space. this is analogy, it's never going to be perfect. similarly, i never said space was dense, that was an analogy as i said explicitly.
space is technically made of spacetime (aether, as einstein called it), not just time.

regardless, you're not addressing what i have to say, you're focusing on semantics. please can you read the post, and read it as it was written: as an analogy. i think the point is made quite clear then.

Spacetime isn't aether and Einstein in later years of his life didn't believe in aether. Every your analogy was debunked, so prepare a new one, because every previous going on about why can space be thicker or thinner was debunked.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:21:11 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:17:20 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 11:56:52 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 08:53:44 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:40:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:39:15 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:36:36 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:30:49 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:27:10 AM

thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area

Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.

it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.

You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.

you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.

Its density is still the same.

exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.

to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.

No, string pulled back is shorter than a string stretched. And also - string stretched and not stretched is occuping the same amount of space. Still, space can't be denser or not if it's not a matter, because, a term "dense" means an amount of particles on some square of some measure. Have you seen? Particles. And space is build from nothing material, but time.

of course they occupy the same space, they exist in space. this is analogy, it's never going to be perfect. similarly, i never said space was dense, that was an analogy as i said explicitly.
space is technically made of spacetime (aether, as einstein called it), not just time.

regardless, you're not addressing what i have to say, you're focusing on semantics. please can you read the post, and read it as it was written: as an analogy. i think the point is made quite clear then.

Spacetime isn't aether and Einstein in later years of his life didn't believe in aether. Every your analogy was debunked, so prepare a new one, because every previous going on about why can space be thicker or thinner was debunked.

an analogy is not debunked by you ignoring it. i suggest you read and respond to what i have actually said.

this conversation started off interesting, but now you're falling into your old habit. i enjoy talking when something happens, but you're forcing us into circles because you've stopped acknowledging a word i've said.
if something is wrong with my analogy, say what it is. currently your only complaints are that it is an analogy. it is not meant to be completely accurate, it is meant to provide a way of thinking. think about space in those terms, tell me what the problem is with space being thinner or thicker rather than merely asserting, and if you can't do that with respect to my analogy, then stop replying.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:43:19 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:21:11 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:17:20 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 11:56:52 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 08:53:44 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:40:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:39:15 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:36:36 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:30:49 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:27:10 AM

thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area

Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.

it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.

You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.

you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.

Its density is still the same.

exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.

to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.

No, string pulled back is shorter than a string stretched. And also - string stretched and not stretched is occuping the same amount of space. Still, space can't be denser or not if it's not a matter, because, a term "dense" means an amount of particles on some square of some measure. Have you seen? Particles. And space is build from nothing material, but time.

of course they occupy the same space, they exist in space. this is analogy, it's never going to be perfect. similarly, i never said space was dense, that was an analogy as i said explicitly.
space is technically made of spacetime (aether, as einstein called it), not just time.

regardless, you're not addressing what i have to say, you're focusing on semantics. please can you read the post, and read it as it was written: as an analogy. i think the point is made quite clear then.

Spacetime isn't aether and Einstein in later years of his life didn't believe in aether. Every your analogy was debunked, so prepare a new one, because every previous going on about why can space be thicker or thinner was debunked.

an analogy is not debunked by you ignoring it. i suggest you read and respond to what i have actually said.

this conversation started off interesting, but now you're falling into your old habit. i enjoy talking when something happens, but you're forcing us into circles because you've stopped acknowledging a word i've said.
if something is wrong with my analogy, say what it is. currently your only complaints are that it is an analogy. it is not meant to be completely accurate, it is meant to provide a way of thinking. think about space in those terms, tell me what the problem is with space being thinner or thicker rather than merely asserting, and if you can't do that with respect to my analogy, then stop replying.

I'll ask you - how do you imagine a thinner or thicker space? For me space is just an empty place to put matter in. Look for it - universe expands. By universe, I mean space creating universe. How it expands? It makes something that don't exist exist. In our universe everything exist, out of our universe there is a world of non-existence. And space brings existence right there. And that's what pulls a difference between space and a "thing" out of our universe. Space and a "thing" out of our universe isn't made of matter, but space is the thing that exists and brings existence and the "thing" out of our universe is non=existing, just nothing there.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:46:08 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:43:19 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:21:11 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:17:20 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 11:56:52 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 08:53:44 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:40:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:39:15 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:36:36 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:30:49 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:27:10 AM

thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area

Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.

it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.

You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.

you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.

Its density is still the same.

exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.

to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.

No, string pulled back is shorter than a string stretched. And also - string stretched and not stretched is occuping the same amount of space. Still, space can't be denser or not if it's not a matter, because, a term "dense" means an amount of particles on some square of some measure. Have you seen? Particles. And space is build from nothing material, but time.

of course they occupy the same space, they exist in space. this is analogy, it's never going to be perfect. similarly, i never said space was dense, that was an analogy as i said explicitly.
space is technically made of spacetime (aether, as einstein called it), not just time.

regardless, you're not addressing what i have to say, you're focusing on semantics. please can you read the post, and read it as it was written: as an analogy. i think the point is made quite clear then.

Spacetime isn't aether and Einstein in later years of his life didn't believe in aether. Every your analogy was debunked, so prepare a new one, because every previous going on about why can space be thicker or thinner was debunked.

an analogy is not debunked by you ignoring it. i suggest you read and respond to what i have actually said.

this conversation started off interesting, but now you're falling into your old habit. i enjoy talking when something happens, but you're forcing us into circles because you've stopped acknowledging a word i've said.
if something is wrong with my analogy, say what it is. currently your only complaints are that it is an analogy. it is not meant to be completely accurate, it is meant to provide a way of thinking. think about space in those terms, tell me what the problem is with space being thinner or thicker rather than merely asserting, and if you can't do that with respect to my analogy, then stop replying.

I'll ask you - how do you imagine a thinner or thicker space? For me space is just an empty place to put matter in. Look for it - universe expands. By universe, I mean space creating universe. How it expands? It makes something that don't exist exist. In our universe everything exist, out of our universe there is a world of non-existence. And space brings existence right there. And that's what pulls a difference between space and a "thing" out of our universe. Space and a "thing" out of our universe isn't made of matter, but space is the thing that exists and brings existence and the "thing" out of our universe is non=existing, just nothing there.

and given that there is a difference between space and non-space, there is clearly some substance to space: something must make it up. it's just a matter of how concentrated that is.
beyond that, i refer you to the spring analogy. you seem to be under the impression that just because something is higher-dimensional and tricky to visualize means it's false.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:59:21 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:46:08 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:43:19 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:21:11 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:17:20 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 11:56:52 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 08:53:44 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:40:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:39:15 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:36:36 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:30:49 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:27:10 AM

thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area

Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.

it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.

You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.

you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.

Its density is still the same.

exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.

to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.

No, string pulled back is shorter than a string stretched. And also - string stretched and not stretched is occuping the same amount of space. Still, space can't be denser or not if it's not a matter, because, a term "dense" means an amount of particles on some square of some measure. Have you seen? Particles. And space is build from nothing material, but time.

of course they occupy the same space, they exist in space. this is analogy, it's never going to be perfect. similarly, i never said space was dense, that was an analogy as i said explicitly.
space is technically made of spacetime (aether, as einstein called it), not just time.

regardless, you're not addressing what i have to say, you're focusing on semantics. please can you read the post, and read it as it was written: as an analogy. i think the point is made quite clear then.

Spacetime isn't aether and Einstein in later years of his life didn't believe in aether. Every your analogy was debunked, so prepare a new one, because every previous going on about why can space be thicker or thinner was debunked.

an analogy is not debunked by you ignoring it. i suggest you read and respond to what i have actually said.

this conversation started off interesting, but now you're falling into your old habit. i enjoy talking when something happens, but you're forcing us into circles because you've stopped acknowledging a word i've said.
if something is wrong with my analogy, say what it is. currently your only complaints are that it is an analogy. it is not meant to be completely accurate, it is meant to provide a way of thinking. think about space in those terms, tell me what the problem is with space being thinner or thicker rather than merely asserting, and if you can't do that with respect to my analogy, then stop replying.

I'll ask you - how do you imagine a thinner or thicker space? For me space is just an empty place to put matter in. Look for it - universe expands. By universe, I mean space creating universe. How it expands? It makes something that don't exist exist. In our universe everything exist, out of our universe there is a world of non-existence. And space brings existence right there. And that's what pulls a difference between space and a "thing" out of our universe. Space and a "thing" out of our universe isn't made of matter, but space is the thing that exists and brings existence and the "thing" out of our universe is non=existing, just nothing there.

and given that there is a difference between space and non-space, there is clearly some substance to space: something must make it up. it's just a matter of how concentrated that is.
beyond that, i refer you to the spring analogy. you seem to be under the impression that just because something is higher-dimensional and tricky to visualize means it's false.

You're assuming that something must make it up, try again with no assuming.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 01:01:41 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:59:21 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:46:08 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:43:19 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:21:11 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:17:20 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 11:56:52 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 08:53:44 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:40:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:39:15 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:36:36 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:30:49 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:27:10 AM

thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area

Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.

it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.

You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.

you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.

Its density is still the same.

exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.

to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.

No, string pulled back is shorter than a string stretched. And also - string stretched and not stretched is occuping the same amount of space. Still, space can't be denser or not if it's not a matter, because, a term "dense" means an amount of particles on some square of some measure. Have you seen? Particles. And space is build from nothing material, but time.

of course they occupy the same space, they exist in space. this is analogy, it's never going to be perfect. similarly, i never said space was dense, that was an analogy as i said explicitly.
space is technically made of spacetime (aether, as einstein called it), not just time.

regardless, you're not addressing what i have to say, you're focusing on semantics. please can you read the post, and read it as it was written: as an analogy. i think the point is made quite clear then.

Spacetime isn't aether and Einstein in later years of his life didn't believe in aether. Every your analogy was debunked, so prepare a new one, because every previous going on about why can space be thicker or thinner was debunked.

an analogy is not debunked by you ignoring it. i suggest you read and respond to what i have actually said.

this conversation started off interesting, but now you're falling into your old habit. i enjoy talking when something happens, but you're forcing us into circles because you've stopped acknowledging a word i've said.
if something is wrong with my analogy, say what it is. currently your only complaints are that it is an analogy. it is not meant to be completely accurate, it is meant to provide a way of thinking. think about space in those terms, tell me what the problem is with space being thinner or thicker rather than merely asserting, and if you can't do that with respect to my analogy, then stop replying.

I'll ask you - how do you imagine a thinner or thicker space? For me space is just an empty place to put matter in. Look for it - universe expands. By universe, I mean space creating universe. How it expands? It makes something that don't exist exist. In our universe everything exist, out of our universe there is a world of non-existence. And space brings existence right there. And that's what pulls a difference between space and a "thing" out of our universe. Space and a "thing" out of our universe isn't made of matter, but space is the thing that exists and brings existence and the "thing" out of our universe is non=existing, just nothing there.

and given that there is a difference between space and non-space, there is clearly some substance to space: something must make it up. it's just a matter of how concentrated that is.
beyond that, i refer you to the spring analogy. you seem to be under the impression that just because something is higher-dimensional and tricky to visualize means it's false.

You're assuming that something must make it up, try again with no assuming.

is space is not composed of anything, then it is composed of nothing, so it does not exist.
space exists, so it is composed of something.

is that really the best you've got?
tell me how something can be made up of nothing (that is, not made up of anything) and there still be a difference between whether or not it exists, and your post will mean something.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 01:05:59 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 01:01:41 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:59:21 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:46:08 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:43:19 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:21:11 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:17:20 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 11:56:52 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 08:53:44 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:40:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:39:15 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:36:36 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:30:49 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:27:10 AM

thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area

Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.

it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.

You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.

you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.

Its density is still the same.

exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.

to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.

No, string pulled back is shorter than a string stretched. And also - string stretched and not stretched is occuping the same amount of space. Still, space can't be denser or not if it's not a matter, because, a term "dense" means an amount of particles on some square of some measure. Have you seen? Particles. And space is build from nothing material, but time.

of course they occupy the same space, they exist in space. this is analogy, it's never going to be perfect. similarly, i never said space was dense, that was an analogy as i said explicitly.
space is technically made of spacetime (aether, as einstein called it), not just time.

regardless, you're not addressing what i have to say, you're focusing on semantics. please can you read the post, and read it as it was written: as an analogy. i think the point is made quite clear then.

Spacetime isn't aether and Einstein in later years of his life didn't believe in aether. Every your analogy was debunked, so prepare a new one, because every previous going on about why can space be thicker or thinner was debunked.

an analogy is not debunked by you ignoring it. i suggest you read and respond to what i have actually said.

this conversation started off interesting, but now you're falling into your old habit. i enjoy talking when something happens, but you're forcing us into circles because you've stopped acknowledging a word i've said.
if something is wrong with my analogy, say what it is. currently your only complaints are that it is an analogy. it is not meant to be completely accurate, it is meant to provide a way of thinking. think about space in those terms, tell me what the problem is with space being thinner or thicker rather than merely asserting, and if you can't do that with respect to my analogy, then stop replying.

I'll ask you - how do you imagine a thinner or thicker space? For me space is just an empty place to put matter in. Look for it - universe expands. By universe, I mean space creating universe. How it expands? It makes something that don't exist exist. In our universe everything exist, out of our universe there is a world of non-existence. And space brings existence right there. And that's what pulls a difference between space and a "thing" out of our universe. Space and a "thing" out of our universe isn't made of matter, but space is the thing that exists and brings existence and the "thing" out of our universe is non=existing, just nothing there.

and given that there is a difference between space and non-space, there is clearly some substance to space: something must make it up. it's just a matter of how concentrated that is.
beyond that, i refer you to the spring analogy. you seem to be under the impression that just because something is higher-dimensional and tricky to visualize means it's false.

You're assuming that something must make it up, try again with no assuming.

is space is not composed of anything, then it is composed of nothing, so it does not exist.
space exists, so it is composed of something.

is that really the best you've got?
tell me how something can be made up of nothing (that is, not made up of anything) and there still be a difference between whether or not it exists, and your post will mean something.

Only material things have to be built of something to exist, space has not. Space is an empty place - how can an empty place to fill up be built of something? It can't.

I asked you to define space because your terminology is incredibly confusing.

distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter.

I don't get the analogy; you can tell how much matter there is in a given volume if you know the density (or calculate the density given the mass and volume). The common (somewhat informal) definition of distance is "space between points".

and given that there is a difference between space and non-space

What is non-space, and how does it differ from space?

space is technically made of spacetime

This is either VERY wrong or you are redefining terms. Spacetime is an abstract concept; mathematically, it's a manifold with some metric. You are thinking of space as something material, which is not, and therefore it does not need to be composed of anything

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 01:09:13 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 01:05:59 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 01:01:41 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:59:21 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:46:08 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:43:19 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:21:11 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:17:20 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 11:56:52 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 08:53:44 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:40:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:39:15 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:36:36 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:30:49 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:27:10 AM

thickness of space is just a way of thinking of how much space is in an area

Have you got anything more than assumption? You're wrong from the very beginning. You say think of how much space is in an area, but you don't get it that the area is a space, so there can't be a number of amount of space in space, because space is space and it can't have itself in itself.

it's to do with subjective vs objective measurement. this is why i like to use aether as the objective measurement of space, as the word choice is less confusing. if there is more aether (objective space) in space (what we subjectively observe to be space) then that's 'thick space'. if there is little aether, that's thin space, and can be crossed instantly.

You're just changing words, but not changing the sense and my response is still the same.

you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between what is objectively true, and what is subjectively true. a spring doesn't get any bigger, but if you stretch it out it certainly looks it. think of it that way.

Its density is still the same.

exactly: in the same way, distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter. in this way, longer distances can be fitted into what seem like smaller ones.
please don't focus on the phrasing, it's notoriously hard to express complicated ideas clearly, but i hope this makes sense.

to use the spring for the analogy, if you have a ruler that measures ten inches, and a spring that, when pulled, is fifteen inches long, then the spring is longer than the ruler. now, if you travel along the matter of the spring, that journey is more than fifteen inches, but still. now, compress the spring until it's smaller than ten inches. it now looks smaller than the ruler. however, if you retrace the path over the spring, the amount of matter there hasn't changed. it's the same distance, just in a smaller space.

No, string pulled back is shorter than a string stretched. And also - string stretched and not stretched is occuping the same amount of space. Still, space can't be denser or not if it's not a matter, because, a term "dense" means an amount of particles on some square of some measure. Have you seen? Particles. And space is build from nothing material, but time.

of course they occupy the same space, they exist in space. this is analogy, it's never going to be perfect. similarly, i never said space was dense, that was an analogy as i said explicitly.
space is technically made of spacetime (aether, as einstein called it), not just time.

regardless, you're not addressing what i have to say, you're focusing on semantics. please can you read the post, and read it as it was written: as an analogy. i think the point is made quite clear then.

Spacetime isn't aether and Einstein in later years of his life didn't believe in aether. Every your analogy was debunked, so prepare a new one, because every previous going on about why can space be thicker or thinner was debunked.

an analogy is not debunked by you ignoring it. i suggest you read and respond to what i have actually said.

this conversation started off interesting, but now you're falling into your old habit. i enjoy talking when something happens, but you're forcing us into circles because you've stopped acknowledging a word i've said.
if something is wrong with my analogy, say what it is. currently your only complaints are that it is an analogy. it is not meant to be completely accurate, it is meant to provide a way of thinking. think about space in those terms, tell me what the problem is with space being thinner or thicker rather than merely asserting, and if you can't do that with respect to my analogy, then stop replying.

I'll ask you - how do you imagine a thinner or thicker space? For me space is just an empty place to put matter in. Look for it - universe expands. By universe, I mean space creating universe. How it expands? It makes something that don't exist exist. In our universe everything exist, out of our universe there is a world of non-existence. And space brings existence right there. And that's what pulls a difference between space and a "thing" out of our universe. Space and a "thing" out of our universe isn't made of matter, but space is the thing that exists and brings existence and the "thing" out of our universe is non=existing, just nothing there.

and given that there is a difference between space and non-space, there is clearly some substance to space: something must make it up. it's just a matter of how concentrated that is.
beyond that, i refer you to the spring analogy. you seem to be under the impression that just because something is higher-dimensional and tricky to visualize means it's false.

You're assuming that something must make it up, try again with no assuming.

is space is not composed of anything, then it is composed of nothing, so it does not exist.
space exists, so it is composed of something.

is that really the best you've got?
tell me how something can be made up of nothing (that is, not made up of anything) and there still be a difference between whether or not it exists, and your post will mean something.

Only material things have to be built of something to exist, space has not. Space is an empty place - how can an empty place to fill up be built of something? It can't.

does space expand? you've said so, so there must be some concept of non-space. if space isn't made up of anything, what's the difference?
it's that simple. space is an empty place because you define emptiness to include space. there is clearly an emptiness with no space however, if space is expanding.

I asked you to define space because your terminology is incredibly confusing.

Quote

distance spanned by space remains the same, as distance is to space what density is to matter.

I don't get the analogy; you can tell how much matter there is in a given volume if you know the density (or calculate the density given the mass and volume). The common (somewhat informal) definition of distance is "space between points".

Quote

and given that there is a difference between space and non-space

What is non-space, and how does it differ from space?

Quote

space is technically made of spacetime

This is either VERY wrong or you are redefining terms. Spacetime is an abstract concept; mathematically, it's a manifold with some metric. You are thinking of space as something material, which is not, and therefore it does not need to be composed of anything

this is advanced stuff, it's not surprising it's confusing.

distance is space between points. clearly, that depends on space. i like the analogy of a spring. you can get a pulled-out spring, and the length of the spring, along the material making it up, is set. compress the spring, it can fit in a smaller space that the stretched-out spring, but the length of it remains the same.
in that way, space can be thinner or thick. the density of the spring is constant each time, in the same way the time it takes to cross a certain amount of space remains the same. however, you can stretch out that space (like you stretch out the spring) so you can cover what seems to be, from an outside perspective, more distance, in the same time as it would take you to cross the compressed spring.

i am not thinking of space as a material, it's just very hard to explain it without relying on analogy.
space does have to be composed of some substance however, if it exists. scientific theory states space is expanding: what does that mean? if space is nothing, how could it expand? there is clearly a difference between space and non-space. non-space is what space expands into: non-space, essentially, doesn't exist (by any definition we could use).
space does exist: space is not nothing. if you disagree with either of those statements, please tell me why. if you do agree, as you should, then all i've said follows. if space is not nothing, then it is something.
that something is not matter, is higher-dimensional, but it clearly exists.