>>10946513

> he describes the phenomenon of gravitation as a transformation of space, which I have no real reason to acknowledge as true or valid.

how about light bending, gravitational lensing, LIGO observing gravitational waves, and that picture of a black hole?

> I do now and will continue to believe, until given conclusive evidence to the contrary, that space is occupied by some substance as yet undetected.

why would you believe in aether when no evidence in favor of it exists? the burden of proof is on you to prove a substance exists, not on others to prove that it doesn't exist. (well, actually, bajillions of tests of SR have debunked it already)

> I find it immensely troubling that something which has no physical properties of its own can be compressed or expanded.

it's not compressed or expanded, the word you are looking for is "curved". and spacetime's curvature is a property of spacetime. length contraction is an observer-dependent thing, whereas curvature is invariant.

> I understand that these compressions and expansions correspond perfectly with changes in permittivity and permeability of space,

no they don't

>and I recognize that in the application of the theory my personal gripe is not relevant or applicable, but I simply refuse to believe that space has properties.

again, back to the light bending, gravitational lensing, etc. etc.

>I can not understand how a wave of any kind could traverse distance without a physical medium.

why not study the equations of GR then? maybe it will make sense to you if you try.

the real funny thing is that electric universe idiots are mostly innumerate, but the two of them who ever tried to do some math (crothers and evans) ended up revealing how in-bad-faith all their claims were... when people pointed out their blatant mathematical mistakes they just doubled down and denied that their math was wrong. when someone shows you how you made a mistake in your math and you deny it, it's just sad