Introduction
This article introduces the concept of the conservation of space, and discusses the concept of space as an intangible; space, not composed of anything of a material nature, but simply a place where matter and energy exist. Continuing a philosophic discussion that has its roots in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Galileo, and Des Cartes, the article questions the philosophy intrinsic to physics of endowing either space or energy with the properties of matter, and, in exploring concepts of space and place, directly challenges the theoretical establishment of any absolute measurable velocity or position. Indirectly, the mathematical formulation, the basis of this article, is a challenge to the validity of the use of any mathematical symbol or equation representing or derived from the theoretical concept of absolute measurable velocity or position. The thesis of this article is that matter and energy can be compared to each other, but as neither matter nor energy can be compared to space, any movement, velocity or position relative to space has never been, nor perhaps ever will be, measured. Although not directly addressed, this hypothesis provides an alternative foundation for interpreting null results received in experiments such as the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887; null results which, rather than being interpreted as demonstrating an inability to measure relative velocity of the earth to light energy, in fact, demonstrate an inability to measure any relative velocity of either the earth or light to space. Acceptance and recognition of space as an intangible eliminates the necessity and basis for any theories that have been proposed (for example, Lorentz contractions or relativistic theories such as Special relativity, etc.) to explain the null results consistently experienced when theoretically introducing space as a tangible, interactive factor in any experiment, or the inconsistencies that inevitably arise with the assumption of a measured velocity relative to space being considered as a given. With the illustration of the interaction and differences between matter, energy and intangible space, this article, in turn, helps to define the role of the philosophy of physics; its scope, limitations, and extent of applicability in philosophy, theory and science.

In speaking of space, I am referring to the area, place or location in which all matter and energy reside; all the ubiquitous and non-specific area occupied by matter, and all the area in between matter. Concepts of space, and motion and position relative to space, serve as basic cornerstones to scientific thought and theory; yet it has never been determined exactly what space is (if it is anything at all), nor how energy and matter exist in space. In mankind's exploration, experimentation and study, as yet no boundaries, limits or edges to space have ever been found. Whether space can be considered under any circumstances as a closed system, whether the universe is in space, or space is within the universe, is undetermined. Neither can we count, weigh or measure space. The extent and characteristics of space are unknown, its parameters and properties undefined. Space remains an enigma. Conserved consistently beyond our ability to affect or measure, space has an almost abstract, homogenous intangibility that seems impervious to any attempts to identify or distinguish one portion of space from any other, or subsequently to measure position or movement relative to space.

Consider a jelly jar, as an example of an object in space. The jar exists in space and space exists within the jar, but the jar and space do not affect each other. Examine the space and the jar; the space the jar exist in, and the space within the jar, is the same whether the jar is empty or full, or whether the lid is on or off. Empty the jar, fill the jar, take the lid off, put the lid on, even if the jar is broken, the space remains. There is no indication that space is displaced, restricted or affected by energy and matter, or in turn, that space causes any reaction to or affects matter and energy in any way.

Now move the jar. The jelly jar, no longer in the same location, will still occupy space and have space within it, but the jar, no longer in the same space, will not occupy or have within it the same space. Try to put the jar back into the exact position in space it occupied a moment ago. Envision all the galaxies, the planets, the diverse forms of matter and energy throughout the universe in a dynamic state, a process of transition and motion through space, and try to locate that particular portion of space the jar was in a moment ago. Try to define the specific location, the distance, and direction that the jar has been moved from or to. Without any way to designate or identify any specific portion of space, with nothing to measure or compare against, is it possible to ever locate that position the jelly jar is in, was in a moment ago, or the displacement, movement or distance traveled by the jelly jar through or with relation to space? With no specific points of reference of space to compare to, it is possible to measure distance, direction of travel and specific location of energy and matter relative to other matter (and position in space relative to matter), but it is not possible to measure any position, distance, displacement or movement relative to space.

There could be any relative movement occurring between space and matter. Space could be stationary, moving past us, or we could be moving through space at any imaginable velocity. The relative movement of matter and energy to space could be erratic, could be constant, or constantly changing. With no way to compare matter and energy to space, is there any means to establish that matter and energy have a velocity relative to space, or any means to establish that space is even something that matter and energy can have a velocity relative to?

The comparison of matter and energy is the basis of measurement. For example, the measurement of the position and movement of the earth is the observed comparison of the earth relative to the sun, the other stars, planets, etc. This comparison of the earth to other matter and energy, however, cannot be assumed to be a comparison of the earth to space. Imagine that throughout the entire universe, all the matter and energy except the earth had been removed, and only the earth existed in space. With only space to compare the earth against, there would be no sensation of the earth's movement, and any position, direction of travel, or velocity of the earth relative to space would be impossible to discern or measure. Now imagine just the sun and the earth in space. By means of the light energy emitted from the sun, the position and movement of the earth and the sun relative to each other, and also the velocity of the light energy relative to the sun and the earth will be readily apparent and measurable; but in this comparison of the earth, the sun and the light energy emitted from the sun, there will still be no indication of any position, direction of travel or velocity relative to space. The velocity of light is considered as constant, immutable relative to space; yet the immutability of light relative to space is no different than the immutability of the earth or the sun relative to space. As each cannot be compared to space, each is consistent or constant only in not being measurable with respect to space. Space offers no reference for comparison or measurement; and this holds true whether comparing one object to space or a vast multitude of matter and energy to space. Matter and energy can be compared to each other, but neither matter nor energy can be compared to space.

What is the true nature of space? Empirical methods of observation and experimentation that can be applied to matter and energy have been employed in every manner imaginable to ascertain the true nature of space; yet space eludes all attempts of being defined or measured. Time and time again, experiments conducted expecting to receive some interactive result or measurement with respect to space, some evidence or indication of matter or energy's interaction with space, consistently produce null results. There does not seem to be any way to compare matter and energy to the space in which they exist.

The significance of the inability to compare matter and energy to space is in its demonstration of the limitations of the philosophy of physical science. Of what use is physics in describing something that isn't physical? The philosophy of physics is an analysis of our universe through cause and effect; the underlying foundation of theoretical physics, laws of motion, thermodynamics, sound, electromagnetic and light theory, conservation of matter and energy, etc. are all based on and used to describe the interrelations, actions and reactions of matter and energy, i.e., cause and effect. Yet there seems to be no cause and effect occurring with space. Without cause and effect, there is no empirical manner to confirm the existence of space, no basis for determining what space is, and no basis to quantify space or to use space as a reference for measurement of either matter or energy. Matter and energy react to each other, and it is possible to demonstrate proof of their existence and to derive comparative information and concepts of measurement from their interaction. But space does not seem to react to anything; you can't impose a force upon it, move it, displace it, restrict it, or initiate or cause any reaction to space, nor observe any reaction caused by space. Consequently, defining space, and matter and energy's relationship to space, presents a scientific dilemma.

This is a profound dilemma that science faces; the understanding and explaining how physical matter, non-physical energy and intangible space, each different in their manner of existence, somehow interact, co-exist, are co-dependent, and work together to form the universe in which we live. Matter is physical (form and substance), energy is non-physical (observable and measurable only through actions and reactions as it affects matter), space is intangible (a non-specific place where matter and energy exist); how can physical matter, non-physical energy, and intangible space be compared to each other? For example, trying to measure energy is like trying to measure a thought or an idea. A thought can move us to action, effect change, be transferred or communicated from one place to another; but how and where does a thought exist, how big is it, what does it weigh, where is the location of the thought in space or matter, and where did it initiate? Energy can be likened to an invisible beast; we see its trail or tracks, evidence of its passing in reactions and changes occurring to matter, and infer measurement from its affects on matter, but we never see the energy itself.

Space is even more elusive. Measure or define anything using space as a gauge; what is there to measure? Trying to measure matter and energy relative to space is like trying to compare matter against the absence of matter, energy against the absence of energy, tangibility against intangibility, something that is against something that isn't. Traditionally, space has been used as a theoretical reference for the measurement of matter and energy, but this has only perpetuated misunderstanding. Lying at the very heart of some of the great controversies in scientific theory, the use of space as a reference can be traced throughout the history of theoretical science by the inconsistencies, polemic, and discord it persistently generates. Theoretical scientific definitions such as velocity relative to space have only vitiated theoretical science, compromising the integrity of experiments, corrupting the interpretation of the results of experiments, measurements, calculations, understanding and theories.

The existence of intangible space has proven to be incompatible with the philosophy of physics. Although recognizing the existence of space, physics provides no means to define space, nor matter and energy's relationship to space. An interpretation of the universe through actions and reactions of matter and energy, physics is a philosophy of scientific method, theories, experiments, results of experiments and confirmation and proof of existence based solely on measurable changes occurring to matter and energy. However, as space, being intangible, does not cause any measurable changes to occur to matter and energy, physics, by its own intrinsic philosophy, precludes any understanding, explanation, or definition of intangible space.

Attempts to interpret and define space relying on physical science's comparisons of matter and energy have only served to challenge existing belief systems, bringing into question the validity of fundamental theory, and polarizing the scientific community. But, this inability to compare matter and energy to space, that has induced cognitive dissonance in the scientific community and nihilistic rejection of formerly accepted beliefs in physics, is actually clearly demarcating the limits of applicability of the philosophy of physical science. A clear distinction that concepts, theories, standards and practices that apply to matter and energy do not apply to space, rather than being a stumbling block to existing science, should engender harmony and accord. With the recognition of the inability to compare matter and energy to space, the extent, use and role of physical science is firmly established, freeing science to truly and objectively evaluate space and develop a philosophy other than physics to understand space.