Relative Spacial Dimension.

[glitch]

Nonsense.
2 points define a 1D line, a third point may be placed anywhere on that line, either between the two points or outside of them, extending the projection.
At any distance.

No two points do not define a line, the relationship between two points does not define a location.

Four points actually describe empty 3D space: 1 origin + x,y,z at finite places.

The fifth point is located relative to the four.

 

[glitch]

I think if location is non-existant then space is non existant. In fact I think space is consequential to location and not prior to it.

If we use 0D points space is not required because 0D does not occupy space.

Usually, one takes a blank page which represents space and draws the origin thereon, so an origin representing existance is contrasted against a space representing 'nothing'.

I don't know which scientist rose to godliness and asserted there must be a pre-existing space to expand into, but there is no reason to accept that, I think fresh approaches are just as valid, and moreso in particular applications.

I invented a model which is congruent to relativity but it goes against what is taught in geometry, and the more set one becomes in academia the more resistant he might be to models that defy current definitions, but if it is cohesive I see no reason to debunk it, try if you like but I worked it out and I'd prefer open enquiry, and I can clarify any query or accept different perspectives.



actually

space is simutaneous to existence of energy/matter

how could it be otherwise , really ?

Yes, this is true though matter and energy aren't actually required as values but simultaneity is crucial, because space is only apparent with a point of reference. So point and space are actually required as simultaneous proportions.

Yes, simultaneity is fundamental.

 

[glitch]

The area under a curve is reduced progressively by a function that can't be derived by two points.

Two points can only discern a finite value. It is only one value. Nothing else is relatively derivable.

1D is a finite valued as itself.

 

[PaladinJuggernaut]

I think you're right (this may be simple thinking)
But I figure that location doesn't exist in meaningful terms; It's only used by humans to better quantify something in relation to something else, to make it possible to understand. But I don't think the universe has "location", it is merely everything is where it is. As well, because the Universe seems infinite (to us), location is irrelevant, since everything is equidistant from the end of the universe itself. Although, if something were to be in the center of the universe, and should it ever be proven so, then location could be derived from the center point of the universe...
....Maybe I'm confusing myself, though.

 

[Oli]

No two points do not define a line, the relationship between two points does not define a location.

Wrong.
Two points define a line: one point at each end.