What exactly is the "fabric" of Spacetime?

[Age]

As a 'self-professed' "english teacher" being clearer would be more beneficial, to you, and to your communicating abilities, with others.

Regardless of what one professes to be or what one has a work it is a good thing to be clearer. However there are other factors involved, which lead to me posting quickly. I have the ability to go over and correct and eliminate errors more than I do, but I prefer not to. Those who find the amount of errors irritating are of course free to read other people's posts and not mine.

So, does this mean that those, like you, who find my lack of communication skills irritating are, of course, also free to read other posts and not mine, as well?

No, only an extremely biased reader such as yourself could possibly conclude that that is my only purpose.

But, were you not aware of how your writings here come across?

To some, sure. But again, it was a false conclusion on your part that this is my only intended purpose. And I am sure you are aware of how your writings come across to many people here.

Not exactly. Would you like to share with 'us' readers here, right now, how my writings come across to many or you people here?

If no, then why not?

I was kind and considered enough to inform you.

Heck, you could respond to my post, in this thread, where I suggested an answer to the OP question. Or you can go on with your false belief about me. Up to you.

This seems extremely hypocritical considering that you never responded to my post where I provided an answer or response to the opening post here.

You seem to be missing the context. This was in the context where you asserted my only intended purpose here is to put 'the other' down.

And, you seem to be missing the context that you are telling me that I could do some thing, which you "yourself" do not even do.

So, in I suggested that you could have responded to a post in this very thread where that could not be seen as my intended purpose.

Oh, so instead of saying and writing something like; 'Heck you could respond to my post, in this thread, where I suggested an answer to the opening post', and then, once again, you make an absolutely False claim, you could have actually made "yourself" absolutely clear here by just saying and writing something instead like:
'I do not only do what you said and claimed I do as can be seen by ... (and then just provide that post). (Which I will note was just a one word response.)

Which would have made things here far clearer. So, I will again have to apologize for missing and misunderstanding what you were trying to get at and to here, exactly.

I could have made what I wrote and meant clearer also. I meant that when you respond to me, especially, or respond to others, when you want to talk 'about me', on most occasions you write with no other intended purpose than to just try to put 'the other' down? But, this certainly does apply in other responses that you have with other posters here as well.

It was not hypocritical, in context, to suggest that you could have done that.

But, in context, it was extremely hypocritical, for you to suggest that I could have done that.

But, as always, it all depends on 'in what context' one wants to 'look from', exactly. But, maybe you are not 'seeing' and 'understanding' this fully, yet.

Do you know that I take issue with you making allegations, accusations, and claims and when you are asked to provide proof, or at least some thing, for your claims, accusations, or claims, you do not?

Yes, I know that.

Great. And, it appears that even you know this you, still, do not want to change, right?

On the other hand when I have done precisely that, it goes nowhere.

Okay. Have you considered that when you say, and claim, that you 'have done that', that 'that' might not have been what was actually asked for?

And I have also gone into detail, several times, how it goes nowhere, and in what ways your approach to communication leads to that.

I have also explained to you, on numerous occasions, then you have not provided what was being asked for. But, this is just one of the other things that you keep missing here.

I don't feel any obligation to continue certain processes with certain people when I have experiences that tell me it is a dead end.

Okay. But, some people might see this as another prime example of another time when one tries to, again, use 'an excuse' for just not providing absolutely any thing that could back up and support their belief, claim, allegation, and/or accusation. Which is, exactly, what you are doing here, once more.

Of course, I may well try again at some point and I am not asserting a rule. Often, as here, I find that you write as if certain things have never happened when they have.

Here 'we' go once again. you making another claim, allegation, and accusation 'about me', I will 'now' ask you to provide the actual proof of where and when this has, supposedly, occurred. And then 'we' wait.

And, while waiting what usually ensures is you making more and further 'excuses' for just not providing the 'actual proof'.

Not unlike the assertion that my only intended purpose...etc.

I have already cleared 'this' up.

Perhaps if bahman or Iambigious or VA respond to every post you make in response to them, you will find that you decide to discontinue the interation, temporariIy or Ionger term.

Why did you even begin to presume this?

And, is this just another one of your attempts at detraction/deflection here?

Look, you obviously accused me of doing some thing here. I just ask you to provide the actual proof for doing 'that thing'.

Now, of course, if 'actual proof' actually existed, then it would have been far, far easier and simpler for you to have just provided 'it' already, instead of all of what you are doing here instead.

And, just to remind you, saying and claiming that "flannel jesus" has already provided 'the actual proof' is, again, just another unsubstantiated claim, of yours.

Should that happen or is something similar happens, well, that's the kind of thing I experience with you.

Even here there is nothing of absolutely any substance to grasp onto. you are, once again, alluding to some thing of which no one here 'knows'.

As will be proved True by no one being able to explain what you are even talking about and referring to here, exactly.

Would you like to share with 'us' here, what is 'the kind of thing', exactly, that you, supposedly, experience 'with me'?

If no, then why not?

[Age]

Thoughts?

Wouldn’t the fabric be the Higgs Field?

No.

"The Higgs field was proposed in 1964 as a new kind of field that fills the entire Universe and gives mass to all elementary particles. The Higgs boson is a wave in that field. Its discovery confirms the existence of the Higgs field."
https://home.cern/science/physics/higgs-boson

[Age]

You really think that? Why?

Why do you ask? Go find someone else to annoy. That seems to be all you do on here.

I ask because I've read a lot of people's posts on here and that guy seems, at the very least, to write with above average clarity and has a good grasp of English.

I like to annoy Age in particular, yeah, but... I mean, that's what he does to others. I'm only reflecting his behaviour back onto him.

But, you have never ever annoyed me one "flannel jesus".

And, if 'I' am, supposedly, annoying you people here, then why are 'you' giving 'me' so much power 'over you'?

Also, you might think or believe that you are 'reflecting my behavior here', but just so you become aware, you are certainly not.

[Iwannaplato]

So, does this mean that those, like you, who find my lack of communication skills irritating are, of course, also free to read other posts and not mine, as well?

What do you think? I think you know the answer to this question. I also think you know the answer to the question of whether I believe they are free to ignore your posts.

[Age]

So, does this mean that those, like you, who find my lack of communication skills irritating are, of course, also free to read other posts and not mine, as well?

What do you think?

Once again, you refuse to just answer and clarify the clarifying question I pose, and ask, you. But, then you keep asking me clarifying questions, expecting me to answer and clarify yours, right?

I think you know the answer to this question.

Okay. And, does this also mean that you knew 'the answer' to 'the question', but just did not want to express 'it' openly, nor honestly?

I also think you know the answer to the question of whether I believe they are free to ignore your posts.

Okay.

[Iwannaplato]

So, does this mean that those, like you, who find my lack of communication skills irritating are, of course, also free to read other posts and not mine, as well?

What do you think?

Once again, you refuse to just answer and clarify the clarifying question I pose, and ask, you. But, then you keep asking me clarifying questions, expecting me to answer and clarify yours, right?

Sometimes I answer your questions and the questions of others. Here I thought the answer was clear and that you knew that answer. Perhaps you'll write something here that changes my mind regarding that. Let's see.

I did not have the expectation that you would answer my question. I did not have the expectation that you wouldn't answer my question. I didn't know what you would do.

I think you know the answer to this question.

Okay. And, does this also mean that you knew 'the answer' to 'the question', but just did not want to express 'it' openly, nor honestly?

I have a position on that issue, yes. I didn't want to answer a question I thought you knew the answer to. So far, I am still of that opinion.

I also think you know the answer to the question of whether I believe they are free to ignore your posts.

Okay.

If you think you don't know the answer to

So, does this mean that those, like you, who find my lack of communication skills irritating are, of course, also free to read other posts and not mine, as well?

just let me know you don't, if you'd like to let me know regarding that.

[Age]

So, does this mean that those, like you, who find my lack of communication skills irritating are, of course, also free to read other posts and not mine, as well?

What do you think?

Once again, you refuse to just answer and clarify the clarifying question I pose, and ask, you. But, then you keep asking me clarifying questions, expecting me to answer and clarify yours, right?

Sometimes I answer your questions and the questions of others. Here I thought the answer was clear and that you knew that answer. Perhaps you'll write something here that changes my mind regarding that. Let's see.

Because of who, and what, 'you' are, exactly, 'you' do not have a mind.

I did not have the expectation that you would answer my question. I did not have the expectation that you wouldn't answer my question. I didn't know what you would do.

Okay.

I think you know the answer to this question.

Okay. And, does this also mean that you knew 'the answer' to 'the question', but just did not want to express 'it' openly, nor honestly?

I have a position on that issue, yes. I didn't want to answer a question I thought you knew the answer to. So far, I am still of that opinion.

I also think you know the answer to the question of whether I believe they are free to ignore your posts.

Okay.

If you think you don't know the answer to

So, does this mean that those, like you, who find my lack of communication skills irritating are, of course, also free to read other posts and not mine, as well?

just let me know you don't, if you'd like to let me know regarding that.

Okay, if I would like to let you know, regarding if I do not know the answer to the question, then I will let you know. Conversely, if I, however, do actually know the answer to the question, and I would like to let you, then I will let you know that I do know the answer to the question, also.

[Iwannaplato]

Okay, if I would like to let you know, regarding if I do not know the answer to the question, then I will let you know. Conversely, if I, however, do actually know the answer to the question, and I would like to let you, then I will let you know that I do know the answer to the question, also.

Great.

[Walker]

Yes, fills the entire universe as one of the many fields that fill the entire universe. The fields are all occupying the same space, doing their own interacting operations in the same space. Not just one field.

Simply put, space is the absence of matter.

Matter is fabric-ated from the Higgs field that permeates the universe, including space.

No matter means no time.

Higgs still sounds like the champ, relevant to the question.

How 'bout it?

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, fills the entire universe as one of the many fields that fill the entire universe. The fields are all occupying the same space, doing their own interacting operations in the same space. Not just one field.

Simply put, space is the absence of matter.

Matter is fabric-ated from the Higgs field that permeates the universe, including space.

No matter means no time.

Higgs still sounds like the champ, relevant to the question.

How 'bout it?

If you feel like that's a good way for you to think about fields, and you want to latch onto "higgs" in particular, then... you know... I don't get it, but you do you.

[Walker]

Yes, fills the entire universe as one of the many fields that fill the entire universe. The fields are all occupying the same space, doing their own interacting operations in the same space. Not just one field.

Simply put, space is the absence of matter.

Matter is fabric-ated from the Higgs field that permeates the universe, including space.

No matter means no time.

Higgs still sounds like the champ, relevant to the question.

How 'bout it?

If you feel like that's a good way for you to think about fields, and you want to latch onto "higgs" in particular, then... you know... I don't get it, but you do you.

"The Higgs boson is the fundamental particle associated with the Higgs field, a field that gives mass to other fundamental particles such as electrons and quarks. A particle’s mass determines how much it resists changing its speed or position when it encounters a force. Not all fundamental particles have mass. The photon, which is the particle of light and carries the electromagnetic force, has no mass at all."
https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-expl ... iggs-boson


Seems to me, no mass means no matter, and no matter means no time.

What makes you feel good?

[Flannel Jesus]

What makes you feel good?

Just, you know, learning about science as it's understood by scientists (trying to, at least) and not just making up my own random stuff. Why are you stilll talking about it to me? Do you want me to accept your model of just one single higgs field? If so... why? What difference do you think that makes? Can you find physicists saying it?

Edit. Found this interesting stack exchange question about it https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... of-several

[Walker]

Funny, I never considered reasoning based on information to be, "making up random stuff."

But if it makes you feel good ...