# Conceptional space/time cosmology

Poorichard2
In this theory a theoretical model is constructed for observation.

(This is the first of a series)

A: Space devoid of matter.

B: Matter devoid of space.

C: Space and Matter.

In reply to "A" Is absolute space possible, a void with non-existing matter? has it been proven? can it be proven? and could a spatial
anomaly exist within this absolute space,a time dimensional factor?

In reply to "B" is absolute matter possible, a solid mass void of
space? Has it been proven? Can it be proven? and could a spartial
anomaly exist within this absolute mass, a time dimensional factor?

In reply to "C" In this model we have two so called states, one of
space the other matter. Is the existence of space dependent on
matter? and the existence of matter dependent on space? Is there
a relationship of the two states for it's existence?

FZ+
Er... what do you mean by space here?

Sikz
I am very unsure of your meaning, however I shall attempt to answer... If I make no sense whatsoever tell me, hehe.

A: I would say that absolute, pure space is impossible. Any point in space is given a coordinate relative to another position- with no objects to use as positions our "infinite" space becomes nothing. As you probably know, motion and position in space are relatave. With nothing for them to be RELATIVE TO, they cannot exist.

B: I would likewise believe pure matter to be impossible. The first reason is that matter, by its very nature, takes up space, and matter without space would be a geometric point- nonexistant. The second reason has to do with relativity. If matter has mass and mass has gravity, and gravity bends spacetime, then any matter would bend and stretch the spacetime around and within it. Therefore if matter somehow existed without space, it might "stretch" some space into existence. The first reason is the most important though.

C: I would say yes to this one and only this one. Matter is characterized in part by its location in space. Empty space is characterized in part by its size relative to the amount of itself taken up by matter. Space is also stretched by matter through the matter's gravity. Therefore the two are different aspects of the same thing- the universe. The question of one without the other is like the question of "Can you have wet without water? Can you have water without wet? Or are the two dependent upon one another?"

Eh
Space is not defined by matter. That is, assuming your definition of matter is objects made of quarks. So without matter, space can exist, but this does not mean that space has independent existence of its own. It would seem that there can be no space where there is no gravitational field present. The field is not considered matter in the scientific sense, and is not contingent upon matter/energy for it's existence, unlike Newton's gravitational field.

Matter on the other hand is comprised of quantum fields, which seem to require space for their existence. After all, if a quantum field is a distribution of some quantity throughout each point in space, what is left if take away the space?

So yes to question A, no to the question B, and obviously yes to question C.

Poorichard2

I have thought over each reply and wish to thank each one
for taking time to answer the questions.
will be posted on the results.
Also for anyone else repling to the questions please feel free
to do so. I will respond sometime this week.

These seem like words attempting to get at a understanding of something versus nothing. It could be that virtually empty space is teaming with matter but we can only detect the types of matter that the mechanisms of our observation can detect, I mean we may only be able to detect things that exist in a symbiotic charged relationship whereas there may be a great deal of matter that has no charge or does not exist in a relationship and can not be detected by instruments that do exist in a charged relationship. The existence of matter seems to be defined by particles having a certain charge and working with another particle to create a lasting condition, if the relationship is broken by some meany scientist then they don't exist very long but if matter can't be created or destroyed then it is possible that the particles still exist and we can't detect them very well and float about looking for another relationship. Another thing that is common is that things tend to go from basic forms to complex forms in increasing quantity so that if hydrogen is a representation of a fairly stable and complex quantity then the most basic building blocks of matter may be in the greatest quantity and below our detection. One can never really prove anything all they can do is give a convincing argument and recommend it to a friend.

Poorichard2
In this conceptional model several questions are presented.
I am presenting my conception in reply to A, B, C.

That space and matter are both sides of the same coin in a
manner of speaking. Space and matter exist as a unit and
cease to exist when one or the other become non-existent.
We can conceptionualize on space or matter seperately or
as a unit,but need to form and create tools to go beyond
known theories in order to enter uncharted dimensions.
To many it's a waste of time, to some it's unorthodox and
to the few an adventure into the unknown. All have the
right to their opinion and choices.
I understand today that space exist because of matter and
matter exist because of space,these two concepts are the
basic building blocks to everything existing. It well may
be that tomorrow I will see it differently,who knows.