/sci/ - Science & Math

All we know is that it is a "thing" that bends, okay?

it's a dimension. it's abstract. it's not a physical thing. dimensions are used to model change, in this case gravity. we cant perceive it and never will so best to just move on.

it's composed of space and time brainlet

The Aether uwu

>>11304723
>used to model change
a change in what?

>>11304743
>A change in gravity
But what is gravity?

>>11304743
perception

Nothing is composed of anything in particular, there's nothing but mathematical abstractions

>>11304748
gravity is our perception of things moving closer to each other. these questions have no current answer. they're just abstractions to try and model time and perception of the universe; conscious reality. There's more unanswered questions than answered.

>>11304754
If everything were composed of "something", you would no sooner ask, what is this "something" composed of? And so on.

Quantum foam, maybe. But probably not. It stands to reason that a property such as time should belong to a corporeal thing, since it can be manipulated. Then again, it is merely a dimension, and the other 3 dimensions certainly don't have any physical manifestation in reality, so, who knows.

>>11304709
Think of it not as bending spacetime, but more of as changing the very notion of what length ist.

>>11304748
it's the force of mater trying to mix with other mater.

>>11304882
>mater
Gravity is gayness?

Computation.

80% cholesterol, 20% water

>>11304709
Grids

>>11304709
Does it matter what you call it? It's there and it bends.

it just is, bro

>>11304709
it's made out of space and time

>>11304709
Maybe spacetime is made out of particles. Imagine electrons and photons, both are particles, they can interact, but they behave in radically different ways. Perhaps spacetime is another type of particle with strange space time properties.

>>11304709
Spacetime is not a real thing, but merely an abstraction by Einstein — in the same fashion of the aether

>>11304709
space/time is made of nothing, what happens when you stretch nothing, you get more nothing, what happens when you bend nothing, you get a bent nothing and since nothing is flexible it bends back as soon as you let go of it

the whole universe came from nothing and to nothing it will eventually return

>>11304878
I like the way you expressed it.

>>11304709
Why does something which bends need to be composed? Your question is based on a category error.

>>11304794
if you think about it "time" is actually "lenght" at the very fundamental level, for example just to ilustrate this point, an atomic clock depends on the movement (lenght) of atomic structure, now you will say: but that movement is tied to seconds (time) , but thats not really the case the movement is regular and this regular effect gives us a measure of what we call "time", from that regular movement/lenght we get the "second"

>>11308586
You have it backwards, movement is meaningless without time.

If spacetime bends then what does it bend into?
Does it bend into itself? or is there a 4th spacial and 2nd time dimension we don't know about?

>>11308613
>If spacetime bends then what does it bend into?
Why does bending require something to bend into?

>>11308586
length.

>>11308591
you can dwell on the metaphysical concept of time as a base unit all you want but for all intent and purposes if you make a reductio ad minimum "time" is not a fundamental quality per se, the combination of length and periodicity gives us the concept of time.

for example theres another thread asking about the ampere being a unit non prima, effectively the primary concept is coulomb per second but then that second is actually the length/periodicity of our clock's "pendulum" (even if we use an atomic clock or even a "light clock" the length/period is the primary mechanism of that clock, all our "times" are effectively based on length/period)

>>11308964
>the combination of length and periodicity gives us the concept of time.
Periodicity is dependent on time as well. Try again.

>>11304743
>a change in what?
Change in OP's mum's weight. Even a slight variation changes the gravitational constant of the universe

>>11304709
The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

>>11304768
>gravity is our perception of things moving closer to each other
what kind of retard logic is this? if someone throws a fucking dodgeball at your stupid face and you watch it comin the whole damn tiem and still dont move is that gravity?

>>11309108
that's thermodynamics which leads back to gravity so yes

>>11308429
This. Nobody asks what are mathematical functions made of, yet they can be subjected to processes like rotation and scaling which we intuitively apply to physical objects. When we say that spacetime bends, we mean the relationship between waveparticles in that region of space during that region of time are changed from the values they would have in a clear vacuum. Does saying the relations are distorted instead of bent help? No, because the thing in itself and the abstract concepts used to model it are different entities, but it is useful for us to describe them this way.
OP's question makes strange assumptions that invalidate it and make any answer meaningless.

>>11309136
i liek this post im gonna use it to jerk off

>>11309029
>Periodicity is dependent on time as well. Try again.
That's an abuse of the word. The sine function displays periodicity and has absolutely nothing to do with time.

>>11309029
>>11309141
thank you for respalding me on that use of the world, yes "periodic" meaning in this case a back and forth motion like you correctly pointed out with the ""sine movement"" .

this is what the dictionary says:

> the tendency, quality, or fact of recurring at regular intervals

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/periodicity

People who think spacetime is an actual physical thing and not a model are retarded.

>>11309204
Doesn't it have to be an actual physical thing? Are you implying woo?

>>11309141
You just removed the context of your own claim:

>the combination of length and periodicity gives us the concept of time.

We are talking about periodicity related to time. In general, periodicity is dependent on at least two dimensions; it is not fundamental.

>>11309196
>thank you for respalding me on that use of the world, yes "periodic" meaning in this case a back and forth motion like you correctly pointed out with the ""sine movement"" .
Motion is defined with respect to time. A graph of the sine function is only representative of movement if it has a time axis.

>>the tendency, quality, or fact of recurring at regular intervals
This just begs the question: intervals of what?

>>11309204
There is a model of spacetime and actual spacetime. Just like there is a map of New York City and an actual New York City.

>>11309231

>>11304709
In reality nothing us bending, it's just matter, simply by existing, constantly sends out gravitons which interact with other matter and energy,all causing an illusion that they're on a malleable surface.

>>11309278
>it's just matter, simply by existing, constantly sends out gravitons
what fucking horseshit is this

>>11309204
>yfw physicists literally talk about the foundation of physics all the time despite it not being physical

>>11309231
>There is a model of spacetime and actual spacetime
Please elaborate on how "Actual spacetime" is empirical and which experiment tested "spacetime". I've heard it can be "bent", but I have yet to even hear what properties it has that allow it to do this.

>>11309521
>I've heard it can be "bent", but I have yet to even hear what properties it has that allow it to do this.
because we don't have a fucking clue what we're even talking about. im not even sure what the fuck it's gonna take to figure this shit out srsly

>>11304709
Strings

>>11304739
uwu

>>11309136
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>11309521
>Please elaborate on how "Actual spacetime" is empirical
How is it not? The entire endeavor of empirical science is to determine which models approximate reality most accurately.

>I've heard it can be "bent", but I have yet to even hear what properties it has that allow it to do this.
What properties does a manifold need to bend?

>>11309588
Testing spacetime in an experiment would answer both of those questions which is specifically why I mentioned it in that post.

>>11304709
>If spacetime bends then what is it composed of?
Truth.
:^)
Get it? Bending the truth.

>>11304709
Spacetime is just a model, there is no thing called spacetime, no thing that bends, the path of light is not straight, these are all math models to make math easier, light is effected by gravity which is an effect of light emittance

>>11309654

>>11309638
You didn't answer my question. Let's try again: what properties allow a manifold to bend? Or are you denying manifolds have curvature?

As to experiments which test spacetime, here's a recent one: https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.01500

>>11309680
>You didn't answer my question. Or are you denying manifolds have curvature?

I did answer your question here >>11309638. The information that such an experiment would provide would answer your question. I cannot give you any more information on that which has not been shown to exist yet.

Second of all we were talking about "actual space", the one in reality so when you say "manifold" are you referring to the mathematical concept or what? If so then "yes, but that has nothing to do with what I asked".

>Measurement of the Gravity-Field Curvature by Atom Interferometry
Is "space" just another name for "fields" or what? Is it gravity? Is space a privation? Why do so many people define as something when it is defined by something else all the time? What is its autonomous existence?

>Let's try again: what properties allow a manifold to bend?
Literally the question I asked only I'm asking about actual spacetime. I could not care less about the model of it when it hasn't even been shown to exist.

There's been a long string of the-one-that-looks-like-Al-is-a-turd memes lately. The one that looks like Al is a turd then?

>>11309750
>privation
not following this thread but you just used a kenfag word so i am sure you are a pseud

>>11309750
>I did answer your question here >>11309638. The information that such an experiment would provide would answer your question.
No, you avoided answering, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

>cannot give you any more information on that which has not been shown to exist yet.
I didn't ask you about something that needs to be shown to exist, I asked you about a manifold, a mathematical construct.

>If so then "yes, but that has nothing to do with what I asked".
It has everything to do with it, since spacetime is a manifold. What properties allow a manifold to have curvature?

>Is "space" just another name for "fields" or what? Is it gravity?
Are you serious? If you don't understand the fundamentals of general relativity then you have no business attempting to discuss it.

>Literally the question I asked only I'm asking about actual spacetime.
Exactly. My point is, your question is irrelevant. Manifolds have curvature as an inherent property. There is no extrinsic property that "allows" manifolds to have curvature.

>I could not care less about the model of it when it hasn't even been shown to exist.
Then why are you asking questions about it?

>>11309750
Oh and here's another test of spacetime curvature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_effect

Let's see how many you can ignore before giving up.

>>11309579
Owo

I am a curvature denier, and I fully support the thesis that because space is empty then it can't have any structure.

If light (((bends))) then clearly it implies that you are wrong. Light can't bend. Because if it follows geodesics, then geodesics are always straight, because curvature doesn't real.

Therefore I conclude that (((Jews!!!!))) cooked it up and astronomy is all a huge conspiracy. Nothing is curved, not even the Earth. Coperinicus was just eating too much 15th century (((onions))).

So I conclude that science is all wrong, global warming is false, vaccines are bad, and Trump should be reelected for sure. Kek wills it all.

>>11309857
>rocket engineering
>flat earth
weak b8

Its not made if anything, its just the boundary between this universe and the other. Time it self has fixed points. We apply these points and define them just like the instant this post goes up. So we have 1, 2, 3... and so on. Assuming the big bang was 0 and the stopwatch starts. On the other side is -1, -2, -3... and so on. I assume, maybe its not increasing, maybe the clock ran out and thus the big bang. Whatever that's a whole other ballgame in a ballpark we can't comprehend. But there's something there on the other side of the big bang, maybe a parallel universe, maybe an opposite universe.
So.
Anything with mass should affect anything else with mass. We observe this phenomenon but can't measure it really. Time dilation caused by gravity creates the wells in spacetime like any black hole. Spacetime is not bending its reacting. On the other side of spacetime is the -1, -2, -3 and the blue meanies or our parallel parts, or opposite part. The yang to our ying, the dark side to the light side or something...

We see our spacetime getting bent but its not ours. Its a shared border or boundary. Just like on a map we draw lines and create territories. The people on one side know their in their country. They know there's been a line drawn and its the border to another land with another people. If we're to far from the border, we don't know where exactly it is, but we know its there because if you try and cross it, you'll be killed. So we can't get near the border and therefore can't see the other people and their land.

Also this is speculation.
Pic not related.

>>11309895
sounds like an undergrad got high and decided to shut post in a pseud thread. read a book

>>11309906
Haha jokes on you i only have a college certificate for a trade and stopped smoking weed last year. Literally on new year's eve after 10 years of cannabis use but still.

you read: "also this is speculation"
But if the multiverse theory is true then I'm correct somewhere at sometime.

>>11309804
>"I didn't read any of the previous posts the posts"

No, I am talking about "Actual space" not your imagined model or whatever the fuck you're on about. Of course that has no properties, it's a mathematical construct like you said, the thing I was NOT talking about. Go all the way back to >>11309231 and work your way down.

>My point is, your question is irrelevant.
Well I'm sorry you can't answer it, maybe you should never have attempted to. Perhaps it's because you're misunderstanding what I'm asking.

>Manifolds have curvature as an inherent property. There is no extrinsic property that "allows" manifolds to have curvature.
How does a mathematical construct have properties? It's an idea.

>>11309809
>represents the effect of the curvature of spacetime
So what is "Spacetime?" I am specifically referring to actual spacetime not a model of it. What is *the thing* that you modeled? Test *it* in an experiment. Do not

>>11304709
>If spacetime bends then what is it composed of?

Dunno. Possibly a meaningless question.

>>11309932
>But if the multiverse theory is true then I'm correct somewhere at sometime.
sean carroll, you will pay for this. look at what you have done Sean. science communication is forever ruined

>>11309942
>No, I am talking about "Actual space" not your imagined model or whatever the fuck you're on about.
The only understanding we have of actual reality are successful scientific models, you massive retard. You aren't talking about anything, let alone "actual space."

>How does a mathematical construct have properties?
How does it not? What do you even think a property is?

>So what is "Spacetime?"
A 4-dimensional manifold containing events.

>I am specifically referring to actual spacetime not a model of it.
Please explain how you can say anything about "actual reality" without a model of it. Hint: you can't.

>What is *the thing* that you modeled? Test *it* in an experiment.
You are so incredibly fucking dumb. Why are you on the science board if you don't understand how science works? An experiment is always a test of a model. You test whether observations of reality conform to the model.

>>11309969
Somewhere, sometime he already has, is or will.

>>11309942
>all questions and no facts or counter-arguments
typical sophistry from EUtards

>>11304709
>If spacetime bends
That's just a metaphor for gaussian coordinates, which is how the universe works, as compared to cartesian coordinates.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gaussian+coordinates

>>11309972
>The only understanding we have of actual reality are successful scientific models, you massive retard. You aren't talking about anything, let alone "actual space."
So it's still a concept and not actually real then?

>How does it not? What do you even think a property is?
Idk, could you tell me how cold a mathematical construct is? How soft is it?

>A 4-dimensional manifold containing events.
Okay, since we all are having trouble figuring out what we're talking about I will give you a 2 part response to this question:

If this is actual spacetime you're talking about:
Fucking Christ, thank you. Something I can actually work with. So a container then? By what means does it contain events and how is it discrete from those events?

If this is mathematical-fantasy-land-model-spacetime we're talking about:
Refer to >>11309521

>Please explain how you can say anything about "actual reality" without a model of it. Hint: you can't.
Please explain how you can model something you have never actually seen or verified as empirical?

>An experiment is always a test of a model.
A hypothesis is what you meant. Does the experiment that tested "spacetime" verify or support the existence of "actual spacetime"?

>>11309979
>Wanting the same person who is asking for proof of said thing to argue about said thing.
How? I would literally be what you say if I did this. So when you get me some actual proof and verification for this thing in reality called "Spacetime" then you will actually have a foundation for an argument to take place. Then I could actually form a counter-argument. Until then, what would I be arguing over? What you say exists with no proof?

>>11310072
>How? I would literally be what you say if I did this. So when you get me some actual proof and verification for this thing in reality called "Spacetime" then you will actually have a foundation for an argument to take place. Then I could actually form a counter-argument. Until then, what would I be arguing over? What you say exists with no proof?
i am noticing that you have tons of rhetorical questions again, with no facts or arguments. hmmmm

>>11310089
>i am noticing that you have tons of rhetorical questions again, with no facts or arguments.

I am noticing that you sure like talking about nothing specific.

>>11310105
oh okay post a statue image and think you look smart.

reminder: you have no argument, since if you had one you would post it. the essence of your posts is "hurr durr i am stuck on 1890 ideas and if i keep posting them without trying to understand then i will win" which actually doesn't work against non-retarded people

>>11310072
>So it's still a concept and not actually real then?
The only way to discuss what's real is to use concepts, you sophistic moron. There is no way to get around this. That's the point isn't it? You're just going to deny any argument because "it's just a concept." Fuck off retard.

>Idk, could you tell me how cold a mathematical construct is? How soft is it?
OK, so you don't even know what you're demanding. It's good you admit that and your pointless questions made in bad faith can be ignored.

>So a container then? By what means does it contain events and how is it discrete from those events?
It contains events by separating them. It's discrete from events because it is not an event.

>Please explain how you can model something you have never actually seen or verified as empirical?
You can't. That doesn't describe spacetime, since we can see its effects and test it empirically.

>A hypothesis is what you meant.
No, a hypothesis is a model or part of a model.

> Does the experiment that tested "spacetime" verify or support the existence of "actual spacetime"?
Why are you asking me when you can read?

You asked for tests of spacetime, you were provided with them. You lose.

>>11310130
NOOOO YOU ARENT ALLOWED TO POST ACTUAL PHYSICS ARGUMENTS ON 4CHAN BECAUSE THIS IS A SAFE SPACE FOR TRUMPIES!!!!

>>11310116
>reminder: you have no argument
Correct! Because I literally have nothing to argue over.

>the essence of your posts is "hurr durr i am stuck on 1890 ideas and if i keep posting them without trying to understand then i will win" which actually doesn't work against non-retarded people
I asked a question and for proofs, and also some clarification. There was never any intention or even an indication of an "argument". For some reason you got butthurt because you're in a Molyneux meme psychosis where you're actively trying to get in yourself and others in an "argument" or some shit.
Why the fuck are you trying to form an argument when you don't even understand the subject matter of what you're arguing over? That is why I say "show me empirical evidence of actual spacetime. Then we can finally fulfill your desire to argue, because then there will actually be *something* to have an opposing viewpoint over. Until then I will form *no viewpoint* of this thing you're referring to as "Spacetime" because I don't view it as "a thing" to be argued over. Disagree with me? Good! Then go find some empirical evidence of spacetime, present it to me and then I will form an opinion based on what is actually there for me to form an opinion on. And if we disagree, then we can start arguing.

>>11310157
>I asked a question and for proofs, and also some clarification. There was never any intention or even an indication of an "argument"
Why are you lying? Everyone can see this is a feeble attempt to establish your EU quackery by asking loaded questions. This is further proved by the fact you were provided empirical evidence and you just ignored it. Here are some more examples which you will no doubt fail to respond to, further cementing your pathetic lie:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B

>>11310130
>The only way to discuss what's real is to use concepts, you sophistic moron.
You can talk of both imaginative and *real* things using concepts, that's the problem.

>It contains events by separating them. It's discrete from events because it is not an event.
Finally, actual content to discuss over. Okay so why don't the events separate themselves? Why does it need *not an event* to make another one occur? If it is not an event then how does cause anything?

>You can't. That doesn't describe spacetime, since we can see its effects and test it empirically.
But when I ask for this I just get another description of a model, not the actual "spacetime" you're referring to.

>No, a hypothesis is a model
>An experiment is always a test of a model.
Well we'll just call it a distinction without a difference then

>You asked for tests of spacetime, you were provided with them. You lose.
The tests posted tested things that were not "spacetime". It was the interaction of source masses.

>>11310193
>You can talk of both imaginative and *real* things using concepts, that's the problem.
Imaginary things don't make successful predictions about reality. We're you homeschooled and never taught about this thing called science?

>Finally, actual content to discuss over.
So the many tests of spacetime curvature are not content to discuss? Why? Because you have no response.

>Okay so why don't the events separate themselves?
How? This is nonsense like saying "why don't two particles in the same time at the same place separate themselves?"

>Why does it need *not an event* to make another one occur?
Oh I see we've gotten to the stage in the evolution of a discussion with a quack where an avalanche of gibberish is pulled out of thin air in order to hide from the fact that the quack has no understanding.

>If it is not an event then how does cause anything?
Why does something need to be an event to cause something else? Are you capable of asking a question not loaded with idiotic assumptions you've made up?

>But when I ask for this I just get another description of a model, not the actual "spacetime" you're referring to.
This was already explained to you, every description of reality is a model. Get over it. Your pathetic sophistry was already debunked.

>Well we'll just call it a distinction without a difference then
Every claim you've made in this thread is a distinction without a difference.

>The tests posted tested things that were not "spacetime".
Incorrect, try again.

>It was the interaction of source masses.
Wrong, light is not a mass. Also a distinction without a difference.

>>11304709
>if rubber bends, then what is it composed of?
Durr idunno anon.

These glow niggers are wrestling with the fucking Doom Slayer. Gutsposter may not be the perfect presenter, but god damn does he have stamina. Guaranteed he will annihilate them yet again.
Nothing like a weekly brainlet thrashing by the paladin himself. Love this fucking dude. Give them hell.

>>11309496
It's the still undetected graviton, brainlet.

>>11304725
>space and time are things
Jewish schizo physics

>>11311443
>something has to be material to bend
magnets, how the fuck do they work?

>>11310411
which means it's fucking horseshit until further notice

>>11304709
Fields (higgs, electromagnetic, etc)

>>11311443
>The universe doesn’t exist

Schizo

>>11310172
>Why are you lying?
About what?
>Everyone can see his is a feeble attempt to establish your EU quackery by asking loaded questions
Don't speak for others. Explain how anything I said has anything to do with EU.
>further cementing your pathetic lie:
A lie I never told? Or do you think I was lying when I simply didn't accept the examples of what I asked for, including the new articles you just posted. I said "test spacetime" not "test everything else that spacetime is not and then say it has to do with spacetime" which is basically what these articles do.

>>11310228
>Imaginary things don't make successful predictions about reality
Reminds of "spacetime", which makes predictions about "space" and "time" despite the fact that neither have been shown to actually exist or cause things to happen.
>We're you homeschooled and never taught about this thing called science?
Why do you think I keep asking you to test spacetime?
>Every claim you've made in this thread is a distinction without a difference.
what claims? Asking for the distinction of spacetime is a claim?

>How?
YES. HOW? What causes it? Do you even care? Or do you use "spacetime" as a placeholder for your ignorance?

>"why don't two particles in the same time at the same place separate themselves?"
Was it assumed they didn't? Was it shown they didn't? What caused the separation? Are they truly even "separate" or only apparently?
>incoherent trite when asked to explain further
Whatever, it was a question. I genuinely don't understand how spacetime which is not an event can even be defined first of all. Second, how does it separate what it allegedly contains? It makes no sense whatsoever, but I'm sure there's some long winded explanation to this. All it sounds like to me is yet another name for an unmoved mover.

>Why does something need to be an event to cause something else? Are you capable of asking a question not loaded with idiotic assumptions you've made up?
Is spacetime God?

1/2

>>11304768
Why the fuck are you on this board? You are very clearly uneducated and are saying nonsense. Go away

>>11304768
Peak fucking stupidity

>>11310228
>This was already explained to you, every description of reality is a model.
>the sky is blue
So I guess that just means "it is blue" right? And that's all it is? Descriptions are not explanations.

>Your pathetic sophistry was already debunked.
So I'm somehow a sophist for asking questions about spacetime and not accepting what everyone else was taught and accepts as truth? You know what a "sophist" is right?

>Every claim you've made in this thread is a distinction without a difference.
Which claim?

>Incorrect, try again.
So mass, gravity, radar and a host of other things that were actually tested are now just "spacetime"?

>Wrong, light is not a mass. Also a distinction without a difference.
okay there's one I guess. Should have put " one of the things tester was the interaction of source masses". But I suppose this would be a good time to ask what the distinction between light and mass is.

>>11304709
Spacetime is not a real thing, it's a mathematical abstraction that just so happens to model the nature of gravity relatively well.

>>11311823
>About what?
About your intention.

>Explain how anything I said has anything to do with EU.
You're not fooling anyone Ken.

>I said "test spacetime" not "test everything else that spacetime is not and then say it has to do with spacetime" which is basically what these articles do.
These tests are testing spacetime, not what spacetime is not. Each depends on measurements of time and distance. You have no understanding of what you're trying to argue against, so instead of providing a counter-argument, you simply deny. You lose.

>Reminds of "spacetime", which makes predictions about "space" and "time" despite the fact that neither have been shown to actually exist or cause things to happen.
Of course they have been shown to exist, you can measure them directly. Your retardation is amazing.

>Why do you think I keep asking you to test spacetime?
You keep asking despite having been given the answer because you don't understand your own question, and you think it has no answer because of that lack of understanding.

>what claims? Asking for the distinction of spacetime is a claim?
The claim that models are not describing reality. The claim that mathematical constructs don't have properties. The claim that non-events don't cause things. Basically this entire thread is you begging the question by making distinctions with no basis.

>YES. HOW?
I already told you, by separating events. You're once again avoiding the question: how would events "separate themselves" as you claimed?

>Was it assumed they didn't? Was it shown they didn't?
No, that is what you have to show since you claimed it.

>I genuinely don't understand how spacetime which is not an event can even be defined first of all.
I defined it for you. Your lack of understanding is not an argument.

>Second, how does it separate what it allegedly contains?
How is your house separated from other houses?

>Is spacetime God?
No.

It's just geometry

it's just an analogy to explain unobservable things to us, similar to how we describe electrons and atoms as balls

>>11311842
>So I guess that just means "it is blue" right? And that's all it is? Descriptions are not explanations.
All explanations are descriptions. More content-less sophistry that isn't even accurate. What a waste of time.

>So I'm somehow a sophist for asking questions about spacetime and not accepting what everyone else was taught and accepts as truth?
No, you're a sophist for ignoring any answer because it's in the form of an answer. You aren't even trying to understand any content given to you, which is what you would need to do before you accept it. So acceptance has nothing to do with it.

>So mass, gravity, radar and a host of other things that were actually tested are now just "spacetime"?
Gravity is equivalent to curvature in spacetime. The rest are not spacetime, but can be affected by it in certain ways by it which allows for it to be tested by looking for those effects. You appear to have a problem with any statement of the form "if X is true then we should see Y" where Y is not equivalent to X. This is the basis of all empirical science. Your claim that this is not a test of X is the basis of your quackery and denial of reality.

>But I suppose this would be a good time to ask what the distinction between light and mass is.
Fundamentally, only bosons that interact with the Higgs field have mass and photons do not interact with the Higgs field.

>>11309213
A 4 dimensional lorentzian manifold is a representation of the dynamics of massive bodies in our universe. Doesn't mean
>>11309231
Spacetime is the map.

>>11312250
>>11312250
>About your intention.
The only one talking about my intentions is you
>You're not fooling anyone Ken
I'm not Ken
>Each depends on measurements of time and distance
>Of course they have been shown to exist, you can measure them directly
What is time and distance to be measured? They are measurements in and of themselves no?
>You keep asking despite having been given the answer because you don't understand your own question
I'm sorry you believe that when I do understand it and you have not shown me spacetime itself. You have stated that it is a model but what of you have not shown. Then you provided articles that really didn't actually test "Space". Most tested the effects of gravity.
>The claim that models are not describing reality.
I never said anything of the sort. I could care less how you describe reality, just prove what you're describing exists in reality. I don't even give a shit if it describes "it" wrong, I just want proof that the "it" is something to actually described.
>I already told you, by separating events.
You restate the premise of why I asked, "how does it do this?"
>No, that is what you have to show since you claimed it.
I didn't claim anything, I transitioned from your rhetorical question and asked another question. Reading comprehension.
>I defined it for you. Your lack of understanding is not an argument.
No you didn't. You never defined actual spacetime, only the model of spacetime. And everytime I asked for proof of it you simply state "it's been done" or ignore me by insisting I'm not intelligent enough to understand what it is. Then you provided "tests" of everything but "spacetime". Then you tell me that it is somehow discrete from events because it is not an event as if that actually explains what it is or how it' discrete. All you have done so far is describe a model of something not yet proven.
>How is your house separated from other houses?
With air and land
>No.
Does it cause itself? What causes "Space"?

>>11312370
>The only one talking about my intentions is you
>There was never any intention or even an indication of an "argument"

>I'm not Ken
Sure, you just repeat all of his schizo talking points, but you're not him.

>What is time and distance to be measured?
What is this question even asking? Is it asking what time and distance are? Is it asking how time and distance are measured? Instead of asking more idiotically obtuse rhetorical questions, just state your argument already.

>I'm sorry you believe that when I do understand it and you have not shown me spacetime itself.
You can't be shown anything by itself, how many times do I have to explain this to you? How many times are you going to demand categorically impossibilities as if doing so is an argument and not a rhetorical trick?

>Then you provided articles that really didn't actually test "Space". Most tested the effects of gravity.
They are test of spacetime curvature via gravitational effects. What is the problem?

>I never said anything of the sort.
>Second of all we were talking about "actual space", the one in reality so when you say "manifold" are you referring to the mathematical concept or what?
>No, I am talking about "Actual space" not your imagined model or whatever the fuck you're on about.

>I could care less how you describe reality, just prove what you're describing exists in reality.
The way you prove a description of reality is to test predictions of that description. That is exactly what you were provided with. You lost already, you're just in denial. Get over it.

>You restate the premise of why I asked, "how does it do this?"
No, you asked why it is necessary for spacetime to separate events when they can separate themselves. I'm asking you how events can separate themselves. We both know you can't answer this, making your question meaningless.

>>11312307
>All explanations are descriptions.
And you say I keep making distinctions without a difference. Well I guess the sky is made of "blue" according to you then. A description says "that" is like "this", an explanation elaborates how "This" is like "that". Without explanations behind descriptions, you wouldn't even understand a comedians joke let alone space or time.
"You can tune a piano but you can't tune a fish" for example is a description of how you can tune a piano but not a fish. Well even though it's a joke, if your audience lacks the explanation behind it then it doesn't make any sense whatsoever or just states the obvious.

>No, you're a sophist for ignoring any answer because it's in the form of an answer.
You're answering me but not the questions I asked, or you don't understand the question I am asking. I just want actual proof of "actual spacetime".
>You aren't even trying to understand any content given to you, which is what you would need to do before you accept it. So acceptance has nothing to do with it.
You have literally not shown me anything that shows spacetime as something, only a model of something else such as distortions of gravity.
>Gravity is equivalent to curvature in spacetime.
Which does not explain what spacetime is. It describes what it does though. What if there is no "curvature in spacetime" and it's just gravitational fields interacting with each other?
>Your claim that this is not a test of X is the basis of your quackery and denial of reality.
Show me where it says (or roughly says) that "Spacetime" was tested. If it tested the "curvature of spacetime" then by your own logic it tested the phenomena known as "gravity". Not spacetime. (at least the gravity probe b one)
>Fundamentally, only bosons that interact with the Higgs field have mass and photons do not interact with the Higgs field.
Which is yet another description and not an explanation. We'll find out more if they actually find this field.

>>11312407
>Sure, you just repeat all of his schizo talking points, but you're not him.
I'm sorry this individual hurt you so much.
>What is this question even asking?
You said:
>Of course they have been shown to exist, you can measure them directly
regarding time and space. Which is implying that you can measure time and space. What is it to be measured is what I am asking
>just state your argument already.
for the 3rd time I'm not arguing with you, though I'm about ready to in terms of you and me arguing over whether I am arguing or not. Really it's getting ridiculous at this point, just show me some proof and stop blowing hot air.
>You can't be shown anything by itself, how many times do I have to explain this to you?
Really? I was shown and orange. I even ate it. I confimed it exists because I observed and experienced it.
>How many times are you going to demand categorically impossibilities as if doing so is an argument and not a rhetorical trick?
The fuck? If I wanted to persuade you of something then I would be having an argument with you

>They are test of spacetime curvature via gravitational effects. What is the problem?
I want a test of actual spacetime via spacetime.

>No, I am talking about "Actual space" not your imagined model or whatever the fuck you're on about.
So what is the problem? I never said models don't describe reality. The model of spacetime describes reality just as anyone else could describe reality. But there is still no such thing as an actual "Spacetime" that is something that does something. The model of spacetime describes the effects of mass and gravity in a placeholder manifold based on euclidian geometry and time. It does not explain the cause of why things work the way they do in the universe. It also does not explain how "time" is even something that actually controls things in reality let alone how it can be considered a "dimension".

1/2

>>11304709
Clamps. There is an omnipresent force clamping your cords all the time.

>>11312370
>No you didn't. You never defined actual spacetime, only the model of spacetime.
What the fuck is the difference you sophistic fucktard? And you just contradicted your claim in the very same post that "I never said anything of the sort."

>Then you tell me that it is somehow discrete from events because it is not an event as if that actually explains what it is or how it' discrete.
I already explained what it is, and I don't know what more explanation you want as to how they're discrete when they have nothing in common to begin with.

>With air and land
But there is no space so all houses are on the same land and surrounded by the same air. Try again.

>>11312370
>Does it cause itself? What causes "Space"?
What do you mean by causing space? Do you mean what causes space to exist? Nothing. Do you mean what causes space to curve? Mass and energy.

>>11312443
>And you say I keep making distinctions without a difference. Well I guess the sky is made of "blue" according to you then.
No, nothing I said implies anything is made of descriptions.

>A description says "that" is like "this", an explanation elaborates how "This" is like "that".
Another distinction without a difference. Explain how the sky is blue without making a description.

>You're answering me but not the questions I asked, or you don't understand the question I am asking.
I'm giving you the answer you deserve, not the one you want. You don't want an answer, which is why you are asking loaded rhetorical questions. I am giving you the answer to the question you should be asking if you actually wanted to understand physics.

>I just want actual proof of "actual spacetime".
The only possible proof of empirical facts are correct predictions. That no possible proof is sufficient for you is your problem, not mine. Scientists will continue to reveal how reality works while you will do absolutely nothing.

>You have literally not shown me anything that shows spacetime as something, only a model of something else such as distortions of gravity.
I did, you just don't want to be shown anything. You also still don't understand what a model means. Spacetime is not a model of distortions of gravity, distortions of gravity are a prediction of the model. Again, all tests of X are of the form "if X is true then we should see Y." You continue to try to obfuscate by claiming that this is a test of Y and not X, or that this only shows Y, or that Y must be equal to X. But this is all obvious nonsense. You were given tests of spacetime curvature. You have no argument. You lose.

>Which does not explain what spacetime is.
What do you need explained?

>What if there is no "curvature in spacetime" and it's just gravitational fields interacting with each other?
Spacetime curvature is equivalent to the gravitational field so your question doesn't make sense.

>>11312407
>The way you prove a description of reality is to test predictions of that description
How does a description of something predict anything?
"the vehicle was grey and low to the ground"
Is an example of a description. There is no "prediction" to test if there is indeed a vehicle there and it's grey and low to the ground. Now if you want to argue over what constitutes "grey" and "low to the ground" then that's a matter of semantics. If you want to know why it is grey and low to the ground, them you need an explanation. You can describe whatever the hell you want, however you want. Even things that are not real can be "described". That is why you also need an explanation instead of just descriptions and predictions of things that may or may not be true. The explanation clarifies how and why the thing the way it is and will elaborate whether or not it is real or imaginative.
>No, you asked why it is necessary for spacetime to separate events when they can separate themselves.
I asked if they could or not because you never explained how spacetime seperates the events. You just called it "discrete" and claimed it did.
>I'm asking you how events can separate themselves
I asked you if they could and you were in such paranoia that you thought that I was implying they did. I asked this because you never explained how spacetime seperates events nor how it is discrete
>We both know you can't answer this, making your question meaningless.
I know I can't answer it, which is why I specifically asked you the question. Doesn't that make it a meaningful question since I don't know the answer? I think you misread my post completely.

>>11312443
>Show me where it says (or roughly says) that "Spacetime" was tested.

>The geodetic effect (also known as geodetic precession, de Sitter precession or de Sitter effect) represents the effect of the curvature of spacetime, predicted by general relativity, on a vector carried along with an orbiting body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_effect

>The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect, is one of the four classic solar-system tests of general relativity. Radar signals passing near a massive object take slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return than they would if the mass of the object were not present. The time delay is caused by spacetime dilation, which increases the path length.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay

>The satellite was launched on 20 April 2004 on a Delta II rocket.[4] The spaceflight phase lasted until 2005;[5] its aim was to measure spacetime curvature near Earth, and thereby the stress–energy tensor (which is related to the distribution and the motion of matter in space) in and near Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B

>If it tested the "curvature of spacetime" then by your own logic it tested the phenomena known as "gravity". Not spacetime.
Distinction without a difference. It tests both.

>Which is yet another description and not an explanation.
Another distinction without a difference. It's both.

>>11312488
>What the fuck is the difference you sophistic fucktard?
One is a model, and the other is what it allegedly models. So where is the "thing" it models? I can draw and model an orange, and then I can actually have a real live orange in my hand. That is what I am asking for, the "actual space"

>I already explained what it is,
A model of "it" and the other stuff that allegedly defines "it", but not "it" in and of itself.

>And you just contradicted your claim in the very same post that "I never said anything of the sort."
>No, I am talking about "Actual space" not your imagined model or whatever the fuck you're on about.
How do you misconstrue this as me saying that models don't describe reality? They do. But that has absolutely nothing to do with what I am asking! I only care about the thing being described. Show me proof of it or hell if you can't then explain how it exists.

>But there is no space so all houses are on the same land and surrounded by the same air.
Uh..."yes". Is there any other descriptions you would like to use or would you like to finally explain how "spacetime" separates those things you described?

>>11312494
>Do you mean what causes space to exist? Nothing
How does Nothing cause anything? Ridiculous.
>Do you mean what causes space to curve? Mass and energy.
How does something act upon that which is not caused, that which cannot exist? It makes no logical sense. Even more ridiculous.

>>11312479
>I'm sorry this individual hurt you so much.
I'm sorry you're too much of a coward to admit you are who you are.

>What is it to be measured is what I am asking
Yeah and I'm asking you to explain what that question means. Instead of doing so, you just repeated it.

>for the 3rd time I'm not arguing with you
For the last time, stop lying about your intent.

>Really? I was shown and orange.
No, your brain was only sent signals telling you that you ate something that had effects on your body which matched those predicted by your model of an orange. You were not shown "an actual orange," just a mere test of a model of an orange. Thus we can conclude oranges don't exist.

>The fuck? If I wanted to persuade you of something then I would be having an argument with you
You are, it's just that the ratio of your ego to your knowledge of the subject is way too high for you to actually argue with substance, so instead you rely on pointless rhetorical questions.

>I want a test of actual spacetime via spacetime.
It was given to you already. Get over it.

>I never said models don't describe reality.
You immediately reject any explanation of spacetime as a mere model and not "actual spacetime". And when given empirical evidence supporting the model you then say it's not a test of "actual spacetime via spacetime," even though this is the only possible thing it could be.

>But there is still no such thing as an actual "Spacetime" that is something that does something.
Then why do predictions that come from treating spacetime as real keep being proven true? If spacetime is not making these things happen, what is? If you could answer that, you would be smarter than Einstein and you would revolutionize physics. But you aren't and you won't, so you'll just have to settle with spacetime being the best description of reality we have. Too fucking bad if you don't like it.

>>11312547
fuck off berzerkfag. we all know you are schizo.

the anon replying to you has schooled you over and over and you need to give up your sophistry. answering everything with a question is the shillest game in the book

>>11312547
>I can draw and model an orange
Show us your equations to model an orange, and remember that parametrisation is not modelling.

>>11312479
>The model of spacetime describes the effects of mass and gravity in a placeholder manifold based on euclidian geometry and time.
General relativity is non-Euclidean, but nice attempt at pretending you know what you're talking about.

>It does not explain the cause of why things work the way they do in the universe.
Nothing does. Science doesn't tell you why things work, it tells you how things work. Once again, you display that your problems are purely rhetorical, you're asking impossible questions that are irrelevant to physics.

>>11312522
>How does a description of something predict anything?
By implication. If the description of reality known as general relativity is correct, this implies that we should see a geodetic effect.

>"the vehicle was grey and low to the ground"
>Is an example of a description. There is no "prediction" to test if there is indeed a vehicle there and it's grey and low to the ground.
But that's wrong you fucking retard. If the vehicle is grey then its electromagnetic radiation should have the same wavelength as other grey objects. If it's low to the ground, then it should not be able to pass over obstacles of a certain height. Are you really this simple that you can't think of predictions to test whether a car is low to the ground and grey?

>If you want to know why it is grey and low to the ground, them you need an explanation.
Which is irrelevant to whether it actually is grey and low to the ground. So your constant whining about explanation and why things are the way they are is irrelevant.

>I asked if they could or not because you never explained how spacetime seperates the events.
Again, you're avoiding the question. Just explain how events "separate themselves" or admit that the question is nonsensical. If you don't answer the question I'll just take that as an admittal that the question is nonsensical.

>You just called it "discrete" and claimed it did.
No, I said they're discrete because they have nothing in common. Please explain what they have in common or admit the idea that spacetime is an event is just more schizo gibberish.

>I asked you if they could and you were in such paranoia that you thought that I was implying they did.
We both know it's just another retarded rhetorical question, enough with this pathetic charade.

>>11312547
>One is a model, and the other is what it allegedly models.
No, the model is a description of what is being modeled. So a description of the model is the same thing.

>I can draw and model an orange, and then I can actually have a real live orange in my hand.
No you can't, oranges don't exist and any evidence you attempt to give me is merely a test of a model supposing that oranges exist. I'm asking for actual oranges.

This is exactly how pathetically sophistic you are.

>How do you misconstrue this as me saying that models don't describe reality?
Because you refuse to accept tested predictions of a model as tests of what is being modeled, when they are the same thing. If you can't understand the simple analogy with oranges, you are fucking delusional and need to take your meds.

>Uh..."yes". Is there any other descriptions you would like to use or would you like to finally explain how "spacetime" separates those things you described?
First describe how air and land are separating houses when there is no space separating them. As I see it, your house is the same as my house since they occupy the same space. The air and land is also in the same space, all overlapping each other. They aren't separate, they're all together.

>How does Nothing cause anything?
It doesn't. Like a retard, you treat nothing as something instead of realizing that something being caused by nothing means it wasn't caused at all.

>How does something act upon that which is not caused
What does something being caused or not have to do with whether other things can affect it? Are you capable of asking a non-loaded question?

>>11304709
spacetime

>>11312518
>Explain how the sky is blue without making a description.
You can't, but that still doesn't make an explanation a description. It has them but is not them.

>I'm giving you the answer you deserve, not the one you want.
Well then stop replying to me then, batman.

>The only possible proof of empirical facts are correct predictions
And a broken clock is right twice a day. I too can state the obvious.
>You were given tests of spacetime curvature
Which is what I did not ask for. I asked for "actual spacetime". Unless "spacetime curvature" is also yet another distinction without a difference from spacetime itself?

>What do you need explained?
>Which does not explain what spacetime is.
>I just want actual proof of "actual spacetime".

Do you have dyslexia or some kind of reading disability?

>Spacetime curvature is equivalent to the gravitational field so your question doesn't make sense.

Your distinction without a difference doesn't make sense. Unless you want to explain what "Spacetime" is.

>>11312529
>represents the effect of the curvature of spacetime, predicted by general relativity
Which is literally another way of saying "this is a description of what spacetime does"
>Radar signals passing near a massive object take slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return than they would if the mass of the object were not present. The time delay is caused by spacetime dilation, which increases the path length.
Which is a description that uses the currently unexplained "spacetime" as the explanation as to why it is described to do this.
>its aim was to measure spacetime curvature near Earth
which is an explanation....of what duties the probe was programmed to describe(measure).

>Distinction without a difference
>It tests both.
So which is it?

>Another distinction without a difference. It's both.
It isn't. refer to the beginning of >>11312443

>>11312691
>You can't, but that still doesn't make an explanation a description.
Give an explanation that's not a description then.

>Well then stop replying to me then, batman.
Sure, as soon as you give up on your schizo shitposting.

>And a broken clock is right twice a day. I too can state the obvious.
Apparently it's not obvious since you won't accept the numerous tests of general relativity as proof.

>Which is what I did not ask for. I asked for "actual spacetime".
Spacetime curvature is actual spacetime, so I'm not sure what you're whining about. Actually I am sure, you will just complain about any irrelevant thing because you are in denial of reality.

>Your distinction without a difference doesn't make sense.
I didn't make a distinction, I said they're the same.

>Unless you want to explain what "Spacetime" is.
I did, what specifically do you need explained?

>Which is literally another way of saying "this is a description of what spacetime does"
Yes, and observing whether something which spacetime does actually occurs is a test for whether spacetime is real. Fucking dense retard.

>Which is a description that uses the currently unexplained "spacetime" as the explanation as to why it is described to do this.
Yes, that's how models work.

>which is an explanation....of what duties the probe was programmed to describe(measure).
Yes, so what?

>So which is it?
Both. Are you seriously this illiterate?

>refer to the beginning of >>11312443
Refer to my response.

>>11306463
>Spacetime.. an abstraction...like aether
tell that to Mercury

Both of you are collossal faggots with too much spare time. Get lives have sex

>>11304709
Space-time is a property of matter.
We don't observe space-time that is beyond matter.
Gravity increases the density of space-time, like it increases the density of all else within it's reach.
The effect of gravity diminishes with distance, resulting in this "bend" you're referring to.

Any other questions?

>>11312691
idkwirow, he says:
>The only possible proof of empirical facts are correct predictions
Predictions have something to do with time.
How can you make predictions about time if predictions have to be made before (in time) then the things they predict?
If there was different levels of time, you could make predictions about low-level time from higher levels or something like that.

>>11313020
Or you can make predictions but don't specify time, and then measure when the event happened.
Or you can make predictions about when the events would happen.

my dick

>>11312720
>Give an explanation that's not a description then.
It isn't a description because it's inherently an explanation. This trifle is not worth purposefully being ignorant over. And you nor I seem to be able to explain what spacetime is without using something else.

>I didn't make a distinction, I said they're the same.
Oh wow, you sure got me. This whole time spacetime was just actually "the curvature of spacetime"/gravity and you've just been throwing this buzzword to describe something else. Just like I said you were doing, defining spacetime and what it does with something other than spacetime. Well I guess that answers my question, in that spacetime is not actually something and is simply just the effects of gravitational attraction.

>>11312668
>They aren't separate, they're all together.
>and here's how
>proceed describes spacetime but doesn't explain how it separates things

As for the rest of your dualistic bullshit, forget it. Someone actually showed up with a proper answer so now I don't have to bother with your non-answers and you don't have to bother answering a simple question with minutiae that has nothing to do with it.
1/2

>>11312720
>>11312668
>>11312619
>>11312562
>>11312567
>>11312569
let me show you how an explanation works. Save yourselves some trouble with me in the future by observing how this poster answers.

>>11312945

>Space-time is a property of matter.
Explains that it is only definable with something else (matter).
>We don't observe space-time that is beyond matter.
Could further explain why we can't, but at least he flat out says we don't observe it and that it is not empirical without something else (matter)
>Gravity increases the density of space-time, like it increases the density of all else within it's reach.
>The effect of gravity diminishes with distance, resulting in this "bend" you're referring to.
Explains the apparent "bending" of spacetime. Unfortunately it does not explain the cause of gravity, but that's not what OP asked. Also it seemingly admits that space-time has a property of density, but the previous statement elaborates what is meant

Answered OP's Question and mine and he didn't even quote me once or feel the need to assume who I was as if that has some bearing on the question being asked.

See this? This is all you knuckleheads had to do. My question has been thoroughly answered and it only took one post instead of a plethora of whiners who talk of no use. Unfortunately it does not elaborate on what "spacetime" actually is HOWEVER it EXPLAINS what we perceive it to be. See? Descriptions really are not explanations.

2/2

100 posts later, no one knows.
Whoever said that a thousand monkeys writing bullshit on their smartphones will yield another Einstein was a complete idiot.

Science can only explain what happens, not why it happens.
If you want an answer to that question, science cannot provide you with an answer.

>>11304709
Rubberbends

>>11315109
einstein would've probably developed into a tremendous faggot over enough period of tiem if he had smartphone

>>11315145
FEYNMAN ON THE OTHER HAND
look at that cocky mother fucker. cocky because he's a badass in moar ways than 1

>>11304709
General relativity uses the MATHEMATICS of curvilinear manifolds to predict the behavior of gravitational fields because gravity produces accelerations and not forces like electromagnetic fields do. It has been remarkably successful but its derivation was a series of informed guesses and as far as we know it doesn't actually describe what is really occurring, only predicts what our observations will be. There are a number of different descriptive interpretations which are equivalent to general relativity mathematically, one is that there is a static (in four dimensions) nonmaterial manifold which all other objects in the universe sit on and are affect by, this is the usual interpretation.

Note: spacetime 'bends' in four dimensions in such a way that, for example, the straight timelike geodesic of an object orbiting a massive object bisected by a space-like plane will appear to be traveling in an ellipse. A geodesic on a manifold 'bent' only in space would never form an ellipse which could be escaped by increasing speed collinear with geodesic velocity

>>11304709
it's all fundamental.

>>11310236
So what is rubber composed of? Quarks? And what are quarks composed of?

>>11315103
Holy fuck, you're referring to me! Nice.

I only really looked at OP's post, can you link yours so I can take a look?

>Space-time is a property of matter.
So, space-time being a property of matter is the only way I can see to truly break away from the aether thing. Fields seem to just be a re-interpretation of the aether, without any explanation for their existence or what holds them in place.
Treating fields, or space-time, as a property of particles might not sound much better, but it's the same as saying particles have properties (that diminish with distance). And particles are defined BY having properties, which is the sort of base reasoning I like and think you're looking for.
It also doesn't take away from the fields thing either, nothing changes about them if they're defined by matter instead of just...hanging around.

>We don't observe space-time that is beyond matter.
Theoretically the reach of gravity is infinite. We can't observe anything further than infinitely far away.

>Unfortunately it does not explain the cause of gravity
This might be fundamentally unanswerable, so I defer to the anthropic principle. A universe without gravity would rip itself apart immediately following it's existence. There needs to be a pure "pull" force to hold the universe together, in our universe, that pull is determined by mass.

>space-time has a property of density
I actually came up with this whilst trying to understand the galaxy rotation problem. If space-time has a density that increases with gravity, then the term "gravity distorts space-time" means something.
It also means that the path of light gets distorted, resulting in gravitational lensing. Which is great, because I haven't seen an explanation for gravitational lensing beyond "that's what the mathematics tells us", whereas comparing it to optical lensing, where differing densities in the medium the light is travelling through distorts the path of light, is much more intuitive.

>>11315049
>It isn't a description because it's inherently an explanation.
So explain how spacetime is not inherently an explanation. I bet it will be something that can apply to any explanation since that is your one rhetorical trick.

>And you nor I seem to be able to explain what spacetime is without using something else.
What does that even mean? How do you explain something without using something else? You're such a waste of time.

>This whole time spacetime was just actually "the curvature of spacetime"/gravity and you've just been throwing this buzzword to describe something else.
No, the curvature of spacetime is equivalent to gravity, you dumb fuck.

>>proceed describes spacetime but doesn't explain how it separates things
>says air and land separates houses but doesn't explain how it separates things

>Someone actually showed up with a proper answer
LOL that's another schizo with no idea what he's talking about. Enjoy the schizo convention.

>>11316256
>Reeeeing at a conversation that's over.
You realise this is maybe the most iconic sign of a crazy person? Like an argument in the street, where one person keeps screaming when the other person tries to walk away.
Get help.

>>11311534
Well something has to be somewhat tangible to be recorded as a thing, yes.
Hence why it's space AND time.

>>11316287
What makes you think the conversation is over? Or are you just whinging because you got called a schizo?

>>11316323
>What makes you think the conversation is over
That no-one is having that conversation any more.
That's the definition of a conversation being over.

>>11316338
But anon, the conversation is always happening, reverberating as the universe itself.

I am lost. Isnt space time composed of 4 dimensions of space and time?

>>11316338
Only two people are in the conversation, and only one person can reply at a time, and that person did so. Take your meds schizo. And enough with the Rick & Morty gifs, cringelord.

>>11316399
Yep.
Imagine some graph paper laying flat. Pinch it in the middle so you get a sort of cone coming towards you. Now the lines/grids will be distorted/bent.

Then scale that up for a 3rd or 4th dimension and that pinching is what gravity is doing.

>>11316363
that conversation =/= the conversation

>>11316415
You made an owwie in my fee-fees :'(

>>11304723
>it's a dimension. it's abstract.
might as well say it's God.

>>11304725
>space and time
falling for the hipster meme.

>>11308586
the only problem is we invented and recorded time long before we discovered atomic clock. your argument is literally pointless.

>>11308618
are you really asking him that question or are you trolling? visualization of what he asked require intelligence of a monkey. if you can't comprehend simple concepts as this side and the other side i don't know what you're doing trying to engage in debates like these.

>>11316477
>are you really asking him that question or are you trolling?
Curvature is an intrinsic property. This has been known since Gauss.

>visualization of what he asked require intelligence of a monkey. if you can't comprehend simple concepts as this side and the other side i don't know what you're doing trying to engage in debates like these.
ESL or schizo?

it's sad, all of you are still stuck in the SM dark age and arguing over theoretical concepts explained mathematically that were never proven

>>11316525
Proven over and over again by many different experiments. Your retardation doesn't allow you to accept experiments as proof, because then you would have to admit you're not special and don't know da twoof that all the dumb physicists couldn't figure out. It's a mental illness.

>>11316578
>black holes
>neutron stars
>proven oven and over again by experiments
[citations needed]

>>11316525
>arguing over theoretical concepts explained mathematically that were never proven
i was just about to write pretty much the same thing. these math faggots are worse hen religious zealots. it's just an exercise in abstraction but here's a handfull of imaginary numbers that should tell you it is me who is right in this debate. Man take you chalk and show it up your ass, you know nothing about anything just like the rest of us.

look, you just need to open up your chakras though extensive meditation and juice cleanses, then you'll get it

there's the noumenal world, and the phenomenal world. the noumenal world is the world as it is, the phenomenal world is the world as we perceive it.

physics is still descriptive, not prescriptive. we are getting better and better at describing the noumenal world so that we can manipulate it. but we aren't close at all to a prescriptive understanding of the universe.

enough description eventually becomes prescription. that is, a sufficiently informed phenomenal perspective will be noumenal, or one to one with the noumenal, such that if one had the material, one could create the universe.

so we must increase our subjective capacities. smaller pee pees and bigger brains.

an interesting thought experiment brought up by richard dawkins in the selfish gene is whether or not a computer sufficiently large enough to prescribe the universe could live inside the universe it prescribes. think of it this way: you have a planet sized computer which can prescribe the entire universe which it lives in. but then can it prescribe itself, prescribing the universe? if it really is prescribing the universe around it, it must be prescribing itself, otherwise it is only prescribing a subset of the universe. however, this sets off an chain reaction. if it prescribes itself along with the universe, it must prescribe itself prescribing the universe, prescribe itself prescribing itself prescribing the universe, and so on, for infinity.

so it is an open question as to whether or not we can both prescribe the universe and at the same time live within it, without access to infinity.

black holes are such an infinity which projects everything outside of them. massive super computers creating our reality. you must open your chakras to achieve this level of wisdom and understanding.

>>11316515
everything "proven" so far is incorrect if a single dimension other than 'our' three exists out there.

>>11316585
reminds me of Newton how he was tasked with making calculus equations for everything, that mathematics is the language of the universe and calculus is the only key.
without experimentation there are no tangible discoveries being made and everyone is left playing with theoretical models all day

>>11304709
Spacetime is not a thing, it doesn't exist, it is just a name given to math that midwits cannot understand, so they call it 'spacetime' and 'bending', but there is no spacetime, and even if there were, it would not be bending.

>>11304725
/thread

>>11316583
Every observation has confirmed their existence. But I'm sure you have some brilliant argument against all of them that isn't "hurr I don't believe it cuz I'm smarter than Einstein and science is stoopid."

>>11316592
So the answer is schizo.

>>11316602
yes. And let's ignore that they've all built their theories on the backs of other mathematicians who all eventually ended up being wrong about almost every theory they've had. This current wave of 'cool equations' is nothing but a latest fancy trend waiting to be buried by the next trendy thing. And man it all means nothing. Get married, have children and try not to die before you raise them. That's all the math you need. Everything else is just a noise.

>>11316592
>three
It's four

>>11304743
A change in gravity.

>>11316728
What is gravity?

>>11316729
I don't know nigga, the fuck I look like?

>>11316780

It's a secret! UwO
OwU But i'll tell you~~
Luminiferous Aether desu
Don't tell nobody owo
It is against the rules to say it ever OwO !!! So DO Not OKay?

Dunno but it must be composed of something. It bends, and waves and ripples, and has a finite speed through which things can move, much like any medium.

>>11306384
>Does it matter what you call it.
What kind of fucking scientist are you, how can you not be curious about something like that.

if we want to have a time unit that's compatible with aliens, we should base it off of number of electron rotations in a hydrogen atom at its freezing point

>>11317013
>what is an atomic clock

>>11317016
I reinvented the atomic clock? Cool.

(O W ,O) so brave.. so selfless..
Saying it ever, even though.

( U W U) we will remember your sacrifice, Nikola.
Thank you for all you have given us.

>>11317013
Freezing point is variable. That's why we use vibrations of the outer electron of a cesium isotope for our atomic clocks, which is pretty regular.

>>11304709
The gay.
It is composed of the gay.
Hence why it is not straight.

>>11310236
Rubber is composed of atoms, that's how it bends. What is spacetime made of, on a deeper level, that allows it to bend? Its a reasonable question.

>>11309087
this thing is a quote, btw

>>11304709
Niggers

>>11316028
>So, space-time being a property of matter is the only way I can see to truly break away from the aether thing. Fields seem to just be a re-interpretation of the aether, without any explanation for their existence or what holds them in place.
>Treating fields, or space-time, as a property of particles might not sound much better, but it's the same as saying particles have properties (that diminish with distance). And particles are defined BY having properties, which is the sort of base reasoning I like and think you're looking for.
>It also doesn't take away from the fields thing either, nothing changes about them if they're defined by matter instead of just...hanging around.
Someone who can explain their shit. You are a commodity here. However, fundamentally matter is determined by fields and the arrangement of them no? Now the question remains "what is a field?" but that would be a big mistake to ask in this already long thread. At least you actually explained how it could work rather than repeating "We described it".

>Theoretically the reach of gravity is infinite.
>A universe without gravity would rip itself apart immediately following it's existence. There needs to be a pure "pull" force to hold the universe together, in our universe, that pull is determined by mass.
If space-time has a density that increases with gravity, and the reach of gravity is *theoretically* infinite then space-time would be infinite. No boundary and don't think "time" would apply to it.

>It also means that the path of light gets distorted, resulting in gravitational lensing. Which is great, because I haven't seen an explanation for gravitational lensing beyond "that's what the mathematics tells us", whereas comparing it to optical lensing, where differing densities in the medium the light is travelling through distorts the path of light, is much more intuitive.
If space-time has density then yeah, that would makes sense. Really sounds like aether theory though.

>>11318280
>two schizos spouting gibberish at each other

>>11317013

>>11306441
>
Yes - They're "Schleptons"!

>>11318280
>Someone who can explain their shit. You are a commodity here. However, fundamentally matter is determined by fields and the arrangement of them no?
Thanks. And
I accidentally conflated the meaning of fields there, seeing as fields exist across space-time (I think?), so my bad.

>...then space-time would be infinite.
If the universe is "closed", then you can travel in one direction long enough and end up back where you started (theoretically), which you could repeat infinitely. Most observations do point to the universe being flat, but there is at least some dispute on it at the moment.

>If space-time has density then yeah, that would makes sense. Really sounds like aether theory though.
Yes, well aether theory is nice and comfy if I'm honest. But it's not supposed to come across that way, certainly not like the old aether.
I found this interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#Einstein's_views_on_the_aether

>>11318314
Got it!
Your one of those types that came to light when the NPC meme popped up. The kind that can't picture images there head or have an inner monologue. So when people try to imagine a deeper meaning beyond the numbers, or talk in a way your unfamiliar with, you confuse it with symptoms of schizophrenia, like seeing things or hearing voices.

>>11316585
>these math faggots are worse hen religious zealots.
Whilst normal mathematicians can be fantastic people, the ones your describing are worse than religious zealots, they're mathematical post-modernists. Instead of insisting the world is made up of language, they insist it's made up of maths. So any attempt to gain a deeper understanding of the universe is met with an autistic tantrum.

>>11319251
You're*

>>11304709
Different reference frames

>>11304709

>what are shadows made of??

>>11304723
To add on to this, time is just a measure of change. not oc but fuck ur qualms with credentialism

>>11304743
a change at the speed I fuck your mom lmao

Dark energy

>>11322220
Probably doesn't exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqgKXQM8FpU

>>11304739
only correct answer. Also, the most rational.

>>11304709
Reality

>>11320677
5

>>11304709

It is a abstract representation of forces which apply to things inhabiting spacetime.

>>11304723
>used to model change
So could we find derivatives for dimensions?

Spacetime is made of spacetime. Its like asking what Energy is made of

>>11320910
You have it backwards. Change is only defined with respect to time, i.e. something is in one state at once time and then in another state at another time. A clock uses consistent change to measure time.

>>11324958
>Its like asking what Energy is made of
matter

Spacetime is an intuition.

>>11304709
there is no such thing as space time you hack retards

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Spacetime.html

>>11308107
>the whole universe came from nothing and to nothing it will eventually return
prove

>>11304709
Alright. Think of Higgs Boson.
Now whenever you touch the Higgs Field, it will "REEE" and throw out partical matter. This matter has charge. It will actively expulse energy throughout its lifespan and that energy, that space, is what gravity is composed of. You may think of it as an anti-partical. Yes. Anti-particle. It is composed of a hole instead of a hill. This is why people sperged when they realized how much it mimicked a binary system, to the point where simulation theory seemed plausible. However there is unaccounted for phenomena within this. So it is not confirmed.

>unaccounted for phenomena
Imagine looking at a mirror. Expecting to see yourself, but the 'you' in the mirror is wearing a party hat for some inexplicable reason, while the real you isn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVhw8wcQK90