What exactly is the "fabric" of Spacetime?

[attofishpi]

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.

U nailed it Jesus!

[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?

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.

So, what is 'it' that you are 'seeing' and/or 'measuring', exactly?

Is 'seeing' or 'measuring' 'sub-atomic particles' 'seeing' or 'measuring' so-called and so-claimed 'spacetime fabric', itself? Or, is one just 'seeing' or 'measuring' 'sub-atomic particles', only.

Or, are you saying or implying that 'sub-atomic particles' are the 'fabric', itself, of 'spacetime', itself?

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

What are you, and some others, 'measuring' 'it' against or in relation to, exactly?

..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.

What is the, alleged, 'curved path' made out of, exactly?

And/or, What causes the, alleged, 'curved path', exactly?

And, could a mass-less thing follow 'a path' anyway?

If yes, then what could 'it' be that is making some thing mass-less do some thing?

[attofishpi]

naaw...please just explain the entire Universe to us...please..I implore you (back when this was written)

[Flannel Jesus]

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?

Believe it or not, newtonian gravity ALSO predicts gravitational lensing - the problem is, the lensing it predicts is about 1/2 of what we actually observe, but Relativity predicts it correctly.

[Age]

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.

Okay. This is what you 'see', and 'believe', here.

But, can you and will provide any thing more than just this 'belief' of yours here.

Like, for example, do you have any actual examples you could give?

I am not sure if you noticed but I actually provided some examples of the "dunning-kreuger" effect, in the so-called, "experts" in which I was talking about and referring to.

Also, as I have alluded to, previously, I might actually be purposely coming across as some 'thing/s', just to reinforce the saying, 'Never judge a book by its cover'.

Once again, I suggest, always, ask clarifying questioning, and/or keep challenging, until actual proof, and clarity, has been fully obtained.

[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.

Okay. This is what you 'see', and 'believe', here.

But, can you and will provide any thing more than just this 'belief' of yours here.

Like, for example, do you have any actual examples you could give?

I am not sure if you noticed but I actually provided some examples of the "dunning-kreuger" effect, in the so-called, "experts" in which I was talking about and referring to.

Also, as I have alluded to, previously, I might actually be purposely coming across as some 'thing/s', just to reinforce the saying, 'Never judge a book by its cover'.

Once again, I suggest, always, ask clarifying questioning, and/or keep challenging, until actual proof, and clarity, has been fully obtained.

Hilarious that you would say this stupid shit to me, in the days when this was written.

[Age]

naaw...please just explain the entire Universe to us...please..I implore you (back when this was written)

The, entire, Universe is just One thing only, and which is eternal, temporally, and, infinite, spatially.

The Universe is, fundamentally, made up of, or consists of, two things only, they are 'matter', which is visible, and, a distance between visible matter, which is invisible to the physical eyes. This invisible distance can also be known as 'space'.

Now, how the Universe actually works is by constantly moving matter, being able to constantly move freely because of 'space', interacting with itself, which is what is creating and causing every thing.

The Universe, Itself, is in a perpetual state of 'constant-change', HERE-NOW. And, HERE-NOW is the 'In the beginning' of Creation, Itself.

The Universe is 'Self-Creating', and through evolution is how the 'Self' come-to-know thy 'Self.

Now, if absolutely anything else is wanted to be explained, then just ask for 'that'.

[Age]

The Dunning-Kreuger is just dripping off you.

Okay. This is what you 'see', and 'believe', here.

But, can you and will provide any thing more than just this 'belief' of yours here.

Like, for example, do you have any actual examples you could give?

I am not sure if you noticed but I actually provided some examples of the "dunning-kreuger" effect, in the so-called, "experts" in which I was talking about and referring to.

Also, as I have alluded to, previously, I might actually be purposely coming across as some 'thing/s', just to reinforce the saying, 'Never judge a book by its cover'.

Once again, I suggest, always, ask clarifying questioning, and/or keep challenging, until actual proof, and clarity, has been fully obtained.

Hilarious that you would say this stupid shit to me, in the days when this was written.

Once again, what 'we' have here is another prime example of another who makes claims, but when questioned and challenged over 'those claims' fails, absolutely, in providing absolutely any thing.

Other than, of course, some kind of attempt at ridicule and humiliation of 'another'.

When one cannot 'counter' 'the words' of 'another', then they, on a lot of occasions, attempt to 'attack' 'the other', instead. As can be clearly seen here, again, by 'this one'.

[Flannel Jesus]

Okay. This is what you 'see', and 'believe', here.

But, can you and will provide any thing more than just this 'belief' of yours here.

Like, for example, do you have any actual examples you could give?

I am not sure if you noticed but I actually provided some examples of the "dunning-kreuger" effect, in the so-called, "experts" in which I was talking about and referring to.

Also, as I have alluded to, previously, I might actually be purposely coming across as some 'thing/s', just to reinforce the saying, 'Never judge a book by its cover'.

Once again, I suggest, always, ask clarifying questioning, and/or keep challenging, until actual proof, and clarity, has been fully obtained.

Hilarious that you would say this stupid shit to me, in the days when this was written.

Once again, what 'we' have here is another prime example of another who makes claims, but when questioned and challenged over 'those claims' fails, absolutely, in providing absolutely any thing.

Other than, of course, some kind of attempt at ridicule and humiliation of 'another'.

When one cannot 'counter' 'the words' of 'another', then they, on a lot of occasions, attempt to 'attack' 'the other', instead. As can be clearly seen here, again, by 'this one'.

Why are you reacting like this? I'm obviously just agreeing with you, in the days when this was written.

[Age]

Hilarious that you would say this stupid shit to me, in the days when this was written.

Once again, what 'we' have here is another prime example of another who makes claims, but when questioned and challenged over 'those claims' fails, absolutely, in providing absolutely any thing.

Other than, of course, some kind of attempt at ridicule and humiliation of 'another'.

When one cannot 'counter' 'the words' of 'another', then they, on a lot of occasions, attempt to 'attack' 'the other', instead. As can be clearly seen here, again, by 'this one'.

Why are you reacting like this?

How am 'I' 'reacting', to you here?

I'm obviously just agreeing with you, in the days when this was written.

you are 'just agreeing' with 'what', exactly?

[Flannel Jesus]

Once again, what 'we' have here is another prime example of another who makes claims, but when questioned and challenged over 'those claims' fails, absolutely, in providing absolutely any thing.

Other than, of course, some kind of attempt at ridicule and humiliation of 'another'.

When one cannot 'counter' 'the words' of 'another', then they, on a lot of occasions, attempt to 'attack' 'the other', instead. As can be clearly seen here, again, by 'this one'.

Why are you reacting like this?

How am 'I' 'reacting', to you here?

I'm obviously just agreeing with you, in the days when this was written.

you are 'just agreeing' with 'what', exactly?

You and I both know that in the English language, when you quote someone and say that what they said was hilarious or humorous, that's how you express agreement. Remember?

[socrattus]

What exactly is the "fabric" of Spacetime?. . .
In reality the "fabric" of Spacetime (Minkowski 4D) is the
infinite, eternal, flat, cold and isotropic Cosmic Vacuum.
Only there the space and time inextricably linked.

[accelafine]

You could reword your question as 'what is 'special relativity' made of?' and that might put it into perspective.

[Cerveny]

You could reword your question as 'what is 'special relativity' made of?' and that might put it into perspective.

Special relativity is the theory that if an object is moving, its size appears to the observer to be different from its actual size... It says nothing at all about the nature of physical space...

[accelafine]

You could reword your question as 'what is 'special relativity' made of?' and that might put it into perspective.

Special relativity is the theory that if an object is moving, its size appears to the observer to be different from its actual size... It says nothing at all about the nature of physical space...

He asked what 'spacetime' is made of.

So many know-it-alls. You see it a lot on Quora and reddit. Always male of course.