DiEhaRd said:

First, there is no such thing as a three dimensional area. There are two dimensional areas but three dimensional volumes. It may sound nitpicky, but your insistence on drawing physical conclusions about the universe from linguistic conventions should at least require you to to use the language accurately.

I stand corrected, when a distance is extended into three dimensions the result should be considered as volume. Volume = Distance cubed.
Noted, registered, filed. :-)

Your current obsession with space seems to be centered on space as a thing, an object, or even some kind of commodity or matter.

I do not understand how you have come to such a conclusion, I did use the words: “three dimensional area” to explain my understanding of empty volume, but my understanding is that a volume is usually confined in or by an area.

If I express the fundamental meaning of the word space as a totally empty volume would it make more sense to you?

Space is NOT a thing.

I agree

It is a defined measurement.

Sort of like D3

We don't talk about buckets of space, or pounds of space,

If the bucket is empty it should have space in it. :-)

A certain "amount" of space is DEFINED by the amount of time it takes a photon to move across it AND NOTHING ELSE.
In other words, the only way we can measure space is to use the concept of time.

You seem to be talking about a vector quantity, how do you measure volume with that concept.

(Using a ruler is not "measuring", it is comparing.)

OK.

This is why space and time are different sides of the same coin. A meter of space is nothing more than 1/299,792,458 of a second of a photon's lifetime..

Again you are talking about linear distance, what about volume?

And there is no way to define a second except by using space.

I consider linear distance as relating to space, but the word volume is closer to the intended meaning of the word.

In other words, the two are interchangeable, which is another way of saying "the same thing". That's why we frequently use the phrase space-time.

Without space there would be no time, that is true, but something must move in relation to something else in order for me to grasp the concept of time.
In other words time is a linear function and space is a volume, and yes, time can not exist without space, but I think that space can exist without time.

A photon is a bundle of energy, and the amount of energy it carries depends on its frequency.

I agree

But energy and matter are related by E=mc^2, so matter and energy are also related, just as space and time are.

Yes, just as time can not exist without space, energy can not exist without matter.
Although in this universe we will not find space without time or matter without energy, the hypothesis that I have explained here previously does allow such independent existence of space and matter.

Both matter-energy and space-time are related because the matter-energy equation contains a term c, the speed of a photon in meters per second (space/time) that ties them all together.

Sounds logical

Everything in the universe can be described in terms of matter-energy interacting in space-time.

Perhaps, but only if you understand the intended meaning or the concepts that the words, space, mass, (or matter) time and energy convey.

Your discussions of three dimensional volumes are not physics, they are geometry, and geometry is a purely mental construct that does not refer to the real universe at all, although it does tend to share some properties with it.

This comment CONFIRMS your membership in the diehard club. :-)