What exactly is the "fabric" of Spacetime?

[Eudaimonia23]

We have all heard of the term "the fabric" of spacetime.

I know it's not a literal textile fabric, but I'm still a little confused as to what exactly it is...

What sort of substance is it? Can you grab it and examine it?

What exactly does it consist of?

I'm not claiming to be an expert on this topic, but the idea of spacetime seems kind of sketchy...

Why can't we directly see it? If it really is some sort of thing that has a physical effect on us, shouldn't we be able to measure or see it directly?

But you say "gravitational lensing" is proof of spacetime.

Is it really proof? Does the light follow a curved path in spacetime? Or is the light itself merely being bent by the force of gravity?

Is it possible that there is no curved spacetime path at all and that, as prior mentioned, light is simply being distorted by Newtonian gravity?

Like I said, I'm not an expert. Just a humble philosopher.

Thoughts?

[bahman]

We have all heard of the term "the fabric" of spacetime.

I know it's not a literal textile fabric, but I'm still a little confused as to what exactly it is...

What sort of substance is it? Can you grab it and examine it?

What exactly does it consist of?

I'm not claiming to be an expert on this topic, but the idea of spacetime seems kind of sketchy...

Why can't we directly see it? If it really is some sort of thing that has a physical effect on us, shouldn't we be able to measure or see it directly?

But you say "gravitational lensing" is proof of spacetime.

Is it really proof? Does the light follow a curved path in spacetime? Or is the light itself merely being bent by the force of gravity?

Is it possible that there is no curved spacetime path at all and that, as prior mentioned, light is simply being distorted by Newtonian gravity?

Like I said, I'm not an expert. Just a humble philosopher.

Thoughts?

spacetime is a substance, by substance I mean something that exists and has a set of properties. The property of space is its curvature and the property of time is the rate at which it changes.

[Cerveny]

We have all heard of the term "the fabric" of spacetime.

…

Thoughts?

spacetime is a substance, by substance I mean something that exists and has a set of properties. The property of space is its curvature and the property of time is the rate at which it changes.

An essential property of physical space is that it can be electrically, magnetically and gravitationally polarized, which is apparently related to possible deformation of its structure. I think that, for example, conservation of momentum is also related to a certain kind of its polarization.…

[Age]

We have all heard of the term "the fabric" of spacetime.

I know it's not a literal textile fabric, but I'm still a little confused as to what exactly it is...

What sort of substance is it? Can you grab it and examine it?

What exactly does it consist of?

I'm not claiming to be an expert on this topic, but the idea of spacetime seems kind of sketchy...

This is because 'spacetime' is not an 'actual thing'.

'Spacetime' was just a term or phrase made up, or 'coined' if you like, which is just held in 'concept' only, and which is 'seen' and/or 'known' differently by different people.

'Spacetime' is not of substance, cannot be grabbed, and cannot be examined. 'Spacetime' consists of nothing more than of conceptual imagination, itself. Just like a unicorn or santa claus does.

Also, and by the way, the words 'space' and 'time' are other words that describe what is not of matter/substance neither. The word 'space' just referring the distance between matter, while the word 'time' refers to the duration between perceived events.

Why can't we directly see it?

Because it is not made up of matter. The term or phrase 'spacetime' exists in concept or thought alone, and is only used by some, who believe that they know more than they actually do.

See, coming up with it making up phrases and terms but never actually defining them, or explaining them in truly confusing ways and/or claiming that 'it' is a complex subject, is a sure sign that that one does not yet know what is even actually talking about.

If it really is some sort of thing that has a physical effect on us, shouldn't we be able to measure or see it directly?

Why would anyone even begin to presume that 'it' is some thing that has a physical effect, it that 'it' could be measured?

But you say "gravitational lensing" is proof of spacetime.

This just another example of coming up with, or 'coining', more phrases and terms, which cannot be explained simply, to just 'try to' rationalize or justify previously made up terms and phrases.

Next that will come will be terms and phrases like 'dark matter' or 'dark energy', and with the claim that it is those things why everything else exists. But, when asked, 'What is 'dark matter'?' and/or 'What is 'dark energy'?' you will be told something like when the "expert" informs you that 'Somethings are too complex to be understood and known', like when a "priest/preacher" is asked, 'What is 'God'?'

All of these types of people, who are sometimes referred to as "experts", like to make out or pretend that they actually know what they are talking about but when questioned and challenged over their positions and claims they really do not, on quite more occasions than they like to admit, as well.

These people just make up theories, assumptions, or just plain old just make guesses, but when questioned and/or challenged they falter.

Is it really proof? Does the light follow a curved path in spacetime? Or is the light itself merely being bent by the force of gravity?

Is light, itself, actually being 'bent', or, is light just 'going around' an object or just being refracted or reflected in such a way that it just appears as though light, itself, is 'bending'? Or, is there more going on here or a combination of thing? Or, even something else?

Is it possible that there is no curved spacetime path at all and that, as prior mentioned, light is simply being distorted by Newtonian gravity?

One would first have to explain what the term and phrase 'spacetime' actually is, and refers to, exactly, and explained in a way that fits perfectly with absolutely everything else and their definitions, before that combination of two separated words, and thus the combination of two different definitions, could be taken seriously, and/or 'gospell' as some might say here.

Like I said, I'm not an expert. Just a humble philosopher.

Thoughts?

How do you define 'philosopher' and what is the difference between 'that one's and a 'humble one'?

To some people, a 'philosopher' is someone who is special, been well educated or well trained, or another so-called expert. So, if one is saying and claiming to be a"philosopher", then it could be said it argued that they are not actually being 'humble', at all.

[Age]

We have all heard of the term "the fabric" of spacetime.

I know it's not a literal textile fabric, but I'm still a little confused as to what exactly it is...

What sort of substance is it? Can you grab it and examine it?

What exactly does it consist of?

I'm not claiming to be an expert on this topic, but the idea of spacetime seems kind of sketchy...

Why can't we directly see it? If it really is some sort of thing that has a physical effect on us, shouldn't we be able to measure or see it directly?

But you say "gravitational lensing" is proof of spacetime.

Is it really proof? Does the light follow a curved path in spacetime? Or is the light itself merely being bent by the force of gravity?

Is it possible that there is no curved spacetime path at all and that, as prior mentioned, light is simply being distorted by Newtonian gravity?

Like I said, I'm not an expert. Just a humble philosopher.

Thoughts?

spacetime is a substance, by substance I mean something that exists and has a set of properties. The property of space is its curvature and the property of time is the rate at which it changes.

But, what is 'it', exactly, which you purport is 'its' curvature?

And, what is 'it', exactly, which you purport 'changes'?And, what is 'the rate' 'of change', exactly?

[accelafine]

No one knows. It's more of a 'concept', an explanation. It's funny, the more you listen to the top physicists the more you realise how much they are floundering. They know what words to use, and how to do the equations, and what the equations mean (for the most part) but when it comes to really 'knowing', they don't know any more than you or me. They are fascinating to listen to though, and genuinely brilliant.

[Age]

We have all heard of the term "the fabric" of spacetime.

…

Thoughts?

spacetime is a substance, by substance I mean something that exists and has a set of properties. The property of space is its curvature and the property of time is the rate at which it changes.

An essential property of physical space is that it can be electrically, magnetically and gravitationally polarized, which is apparently related to possible deformation of its structure.

What is 'physical space', exactly?

And/or, what is 'its' 'structure', exactly?

I think that, for example, conservation of momentum is also related to a certain kind of its polarization.…

Okay.

But what 'we' have here, again, is another example of one 'trying to' sound like they know what they are talking about, but when questioned and/or challenged, then what they express next shows how much, or how little, if at all, they really know.

[Age]

No one knows. It's more of a 'concept', an explanation. It's funny, the more you listen to the top physicists the more you realise how much they are floundering. They know what words to use, and how to do the equations, and what the equations mean (for the most part) but when it comes to really 'knowing', they don't know any more than you or me. They are fascinating to listen to though, and genuinely brilliant.

'Brilliant' is a very specific, and relative, word.

Being able to 'equate' symbols, which are not made 'popularly known', may appear to be 'brilliant' and may actually even be 'very brilliant', but thinking or believing that the Universe, Itself, does, or does not, work or behave in particular ways, because they do not align with human beings made up symbols and equations, well to me anyway, is not 'being brilliant' at all. And, in fact, is being the very opposite of what 'being brilliant' or 'brilliance', itself, means or refers to, exactly.

For example, because some.of the so-called "experts" cannot fathom 'infinity' or cannot calculate or apply 'infinite' into 'their equations', then that think or believe that Universe 'must of' began. And, because 'this presumption' exists within 'their psyche' any 'data' that they receive that 'look at' 'it', with 'this currently existing presumption', which then effects what they then 'see'and so-call 'discover'.

Redshift and the view that the Universe is expanding is a prime example of this 'non brilliance'.

[attofishpi]

We have all heard of the term "the fabric" of spacetime.

I know it's not a literal textile fabric, but I'm still a little confused as to what exactly it is...

What sort of substance is it? Can you grab it and examine it?

Of course you can, heck, you can even eat it..

It's made of candyfloss.

[Will Bouwman]

We have all heard of the term "the fabric" of spacetime...
What exactly does it consist of?

In special relativity, Einstein adopted his tutor Herman Minkowski's four dimensional grid that locates events. You can find any place in the universe using 3 spatial dimensions. There are alternatives, but the most familiar are Cartesian coordinates, using which, everywhere is left/right, before/behind, up/down from any point of your choice. To locate an event, you have to say when it happens, again, relative to some event of your choice.
Part of the motivation for special relativity was the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment which failed to detect any motion through the substance that electromagnetic waves were believed to be ripples in. That substance was called the luminiferous aether; it was supposed to be a static medium that filled space and which we were moving through. But, as Michelson-Morley showed, such an aether doesn't exist and for special relativity, the idea of there being a 'fabric' filling space was dropped.
Having done away with the fabric in special relativity, Einstein reintroduced it in general relativity, but instead of being a static 'aether', the new spacetime fabric is a flexible, dynamic aether and, as Einstein said:
According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.
https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/E ... al%20sense.
However, from an instrumentalist point of view, the fact that the field equations based on the idea of a fabric describe the effects of gravity extremely well, doesn't mean it is true, and there are rival theories to general relativity that explain gravity just as successfully.
So it's either maths, or an hypothesis that may or may not be true.

[Impenitent]

We have all heard of the term "the fabric" of spacetime.

I know it's not a literal textile fabric, but I'm still a little confused as to what exactly it is...

What sort of substance is it? Can you grab it and examine it?

Of course you can, heck, you can even eat it..

It's made of candyfloss.

at least you didn't say Tweed

-Imp

[accelafine]

We have all heard of the term "the fabric" of spacetime...
What exactly does it consist of?

In special relativity, Einstein adopted his tutor Herman Minkowski's four dimensional grid that locates events. You can find any place in the universe using 3 spatial dimensions. There are alternatives, but the most familiar are Cartesian coordinates, using which, everywhere is left/right, before/behind, up/down from any point of your choice. To locate an event, you have to say when it happens, again, relative to some event of your choice.
Part of the motivation for special relativity was the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment which failed to detect any motion through the substance that electromagnetic waves were believed to be ripples in. That substance was called the luminiferous aether; it was supposed to be a static medium that filled space and which we were moving through. But, as Michelson-Morley showed, such an aether doesn't exist and for special relativity, the idea of there being a 'fabric' filling space was dropped.
Having done away with the fabric in special relativity, Einstein reintroduced it in general relativity, but instead of being a static 'aether', the new spacetime fabric is a flexible, dynamic aether and, as Einstein said:
According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.
https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/E ... al%20sense.
However, from an instrumentalist point of view, the fact that the field equations based on the idea of a fabric describe the effects of gravity extremely well, doesn't mean it is true, and there are rival theories to general relativity that explain gravity just as successfully.
So it's either maths, or an hypothesis that may or may not be true.

In other words you don't know.

[Will Bouwman]

In other words you don't know.

Yep.

[attofishpi]

We have all heard of the term "the fabric" of spacetime.

I know it's not a literal textile fabric, but I'm still a little confused as to what exactly it is...

What sort of substance is it? Can you grab it and examine it?

What exactly does it consist of?

I'm not claiming to be an expert on this topic, but the idea of spacetime seems kind of sketchy...

Why can't we directly see it? If it really is some sort of thing that has a physical effect on us, shouldn't we be able to measure or see it directly?

But you say "gravitational lensing" is proof of spacetime.

Is it really proof? Does the light follow a curved path in spacetime? Or is the light itself merely being bent by the force of gravity?

Is it possible that there is no curved spacetime path at all and that, as prior mentioned, light is simply being distorted by Newtonian gravity?

Like I said, I'm not an expert. Just a humble philosopher.

Thoughts?

My little take on it..

Why can't we directly see it? If it really is some sort of thing that has a physical effect on us, shouldn't we be able to measure or see it directly?

I think we can. Is there any point in a cartesian 3D universe where there is NOTHING? Probably but only for far less than a zeptosecond. My thought is that at each point in 3D space either an event occurs or it doesn't - when there is an event at any 3D coordinate is where a sub-atomic particle blips into existence - just around the Planck scale.

(In other words - when we watch TV or listen to the radio we are measuring 'IT')

..say "gravitational lensing" is proof of spacetime. Is it really proof? Does the light follow a curved path in spacetime? Or is the light itself merely being bent by the force of gravity?

I believe it's bent by the curved path. Light doesn't have mass.

[Flannel Jesus]

Because it is not made up of matter. The term or phrase 'spacetime' exists in concept or thought alone, and is only used by some, who believe that they know more than they actually do.

The Dunning-Kreuger is just dripping off you.