Yes,that's exactly what I mean.I want to make a PHYSICAL model that could explain everything we observe in space.That's my goal and I think I'm closing in.I use this geat forum astronomy.net to test the first version.An execllent testing ground-don't you think-if I had made a wrong formulation it will become evident here and I can correct it fastly.As my ideas are subjected to crossfire from everyone in the forum the good survive and the bad are revieled.This forum is really a great place to refine ideas before moving to the next stage.And because of you I saw a language error.I mean a scientific model to understand space and its properties we observe.No matter what you read you wouldn't find such model,would you?But what I'm interested in is the science-the underlying principles behind everything including space,not the formulation and I wanted you to see this.
Now as far as our understanding of space is concerned please consider this situation:Imagine you are in Greece a few hundred years before Christ.Now you are a smart guy and you know everything the great scientists and philosophers of Greece had done.You are still living in a society not very advanced from the stone age despite the great progress in the last few milenias,a society still shrouded by misticism and religion.And you see this marvelous subject-geometry and the fascinating facts it reveals for the world we live in.You wonder what is the basis of all that and you find the five postulates of the Euclid's geometry.You are fascinated and you think that's the base of space because you can see the postulates are true and you have no idea what this strange think called space could be.Nowdays the things are very different-we have much better understanding of mathematics and geometry in particular,there is strictly defined science instead of misticism and a lot more knowledge about the world we live in.Despite that there is not a universal way of describing space but now at least we could see this phenomenon in much better way then the greeks do.And don't you think that there could be something better and more fundamental then the postulates of geometry-something that could explain them.The goal of science is to explain the natural world the way we see it and the means of science to this are theories based on assumptions called the laws of physics which in turn are based on the evidence we have.

• but - harvey1 - July 12, 2004 - 14:23 UTC
  • It is not necessary - qazws - July 16, 2004 - 12:08 UTC
    • The trouble is... - harvey1 - July 16, 2004 - 14:49 UTC
      • I can do the trick - qazws - July 17, 2004 - 10:41 UTC
        • Still something missing - harvey1 - July 20, 2004 - 15:31 UTC
          • You've got me right - qazws - July 21, 2004 - 09:05 UTC
            • Not really - harvey1 - July 21, 2004 - 14:20 UTC
              • A fundamental question-A fundamental answer - qazws - July 21, 2004 - 15:54 UTC
                • Why you don't reply me??? - qazws - July 26, 2004 - 09:41 UTC