Back to Home

General Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Misc. Topics | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Some Perspective

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on July 12, 2004 00:18:37 UTC

If you wish to address space from a scientific perspective, then I agree, you can 'define' it by making reference to mathematics (e.g., Reimannian geometry, etc). However, I don't think you can say that you defining space, rather you are seeking a appropriate model for space. For a scientific model, one would hope for a predictive model so that we can test the model to see if it is accurate and reliable. If you can't develop a predictive model, then at the very least the model should be explanatative. That is, the model is able to cohere with existing theories (e.g., general relativity) in a manner that other scientific explanations are less satisfactory.

I'm guessing, but perhaps the reason you are using an axiomatic approach to 'defining' space is that an axiomatic approach is sometimes considered to be more fundamental. If so, I still think it's a mistake to confuse 'fundamental' with a definition. Obviously Euclid provided an axiomatic description of space, but it wasn't a definition as we know since Einstein.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins