If you are going to read these, "comic book," versions of science, at least pay attention to what is written. The very first paragraph explains:
The famous physicist Albert Einstein helped develop the idea of space-time as part of his theory of relativity. Prior to his pioneering work, scientists had two separate theories to explain physical phenomena: Isaac Newton's laws of physics described the motion of massive objects, while James Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic models explained the properties of light, according to NASA.
Everyone who learns a little physics misunderstands, that most of the concepts of physics do not identify actual entities or substances as they actually exist, but are, "models," or, "metaphors," which use the attributes of actual physical existents (like waves and particles) to illustrate or picture what is going on at a physical level that cannot be seen or actually perceived.
Take the model of the atom for example:
Atoms are a method used by scientists to, "picture," or, "illustrate," the nature of the chemical attributes of actual physical entities. There are no atoms, "in themselves," only atoms as a means of describing the chemical properties of physical things. At one time, atoms were, "pictured," as, "particles," like tiny round pellets, then as little balls with other balls imbedded in them, or miniature, "solar systems," like the Rutherford and Bohr models.
This is how atoms are modeled today:
Atoms are no longer pictured as tiny particles, but more as, "clouds," or, "waves," as in the Schrodinger (or quantum) model of an atom. They are all only models, however, and have no existence of their own except as explanations of the chemical nature of real physical entities which actually exist on their own and can be seen, heard, felt, smelled, and tasted. Atoms are, in fact, just very useful fictions invented to help scientist picture what are only properties and not actual entities at all.
Or Maxwell's, "magnetic fields," or Newton's, "gravitational field," or light being pictured as both a particle, (to describe it's quantum properties), and as a wave, (to describe it's wave-like properties).
When it was first discovered that light could be described as a wave, scientitsts assumed a light (or electro-magnetic) wave had to be a wave of something which it would have to travel through the way sound travels as a wave through a medium. If there were such a medium, everything would be emersed in it, including the earth, in which case, light traveling through that medium would travel at different speeds depending on which way the earth was traveling through that medium. The medium was call the, "luminiferous aether," and the hypothesis was called the, "aether theory of light." In the late 1800s, Michelson, and Morley handily proved light travels at the same speed in any direction. There is no aether.
Einstein actually used the word, "aether," when first describing the gravitational field within general relativity, but that word was soon replaced by the geodesic description now known as, "space-time." Einstein himself said of that "aether," cum, "space-time," model, no "substance" and no state of motion can be attributed to it.
There is no more an actual thing, "space time," than there was, "luminiferous aether." "Space-time," is only a model, an elaborate metaphorical description that helps to picture or illustrate how actual physical existents behave relative to each other, but there is no actual stuff or thing, "space-time."
Here's a question to ask yourself. If, "space-time," were actually some kind of substance or stuff, how could anything travel through it without friction?
