Spacetime is just the mathematical coordinate system of the theory of Relativity
Fine, SD, tho that doesnt address some of the points Im asking
1} is Gravity a force of mass-attraction?
Yes, it is one of the four fundamental forces recognized by physics.
A lot of people want to say it’s not a force because General Theory of Relativity (GTR) shows it to be emergent, but so what. If you want to be picky about it, all four of the fundamental forces are emergent. If you choose to say “Interaction> rather than “Force”, but F=ma is still going to be a fundamental formula that is used in physics, probably more than any other formula science uses.
2} If not, then then like my messsage says that others, say, mass-curves spacetime, tho if spacetime is the math coordinates and not and occupied space/mediume of force, the what is that bring to masses together? Understand SD?
It’s the force of gravity that brings any two objects with mass together. Spacetime is an abstract mathematical concept that is useful for physical theory, but that doesn’t change the fact that human beings experience the three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time as separate.
In practice, you will experience where you are spatially and when you are temporally, you will never experience spacetime, human beings will never travel at the speeds or be in the gravitational fields where spacetime is necessary to explain their experience of gravity. The concept of spacetime is mathematical rather than ontological. We can think about mathematics, but we still have to live in the real world.
3} it space or time or spacetime is an occupied space medium, then yes it can be warped curved inward by mass, and two or masses get in this curved/warped space or time or spacetime, pulled-inward to each, not by some force called mass-attracitive Gravity. I dont like that idea, yet im running with it till some clearly explains what mass is warping. Understand?
I don’t know what it means to say “space or time or spacetime is an occupied space medium” and also don’t know why putting that label on them precludes gravity from being a mass-attractive force. I’ve never really understood your idea of “occupied space”, can you tell me what it is about this thing you call “occupied space medium” that allows gravity to warp space but doesn’t allow it to be a force of attraction?
4} some say or is this underlying substrate called aether, that, no evidence exists, and other tell me oh, its new kind of ether with differrent propeteries than than Morley-Michlson aether. Yet no evidence for that ether either.
Yeah, that all began in 1865 with Maxwell’s theory of Electromagnetism, when he showed that light is a wave the understanding was that a wave was a propagation through a medium. So what was the medium? But they never found a physical medium through which the wave travels. Well, it turns out that electromagnetic waves don’t need a physical medium, that’s mysterious, causing us to rethink the concept of wave, but to the extent that the Luminescent Aether was understood to be some kind of “substance”, a physical medium that light waves could propagate through, there isn’t one. I think what you are struggling with is if it’s not a physical thing, how can it warp or bend, but physicists use regular words to represent ideas that are completely different than how we use those words normally.
They use “spin” as a property for particles, but they are not talking about a rotating object that has angular momentum, same with the representation of space being flat, curved, warped or bent, they aren’t talking about a physical thing that actually bends. Space is three dimensional, what or where does it bend into?
So, from my point a lot of hand-waving on both sides, and I tend to go with Gravitation space { and occupied space/mdeium } that is warped by mass. So if you want to add some clarity for what causes two masses to come together, please explain specifically what you think is goining on
That’s fine, if you are more comfortable conceiving of it that way, that’s how you should think of it, in the abstract, but it’s a mistake to think of reality being equal to the mathematics we apply to it, reality isn’t abstract, mathematics is.
....5a} warped math{ spacetime } draws to masses toward each other,
...5b} some occupied space/medium is being warped by mass, and that is what draws the two masses together.
Sure, or you can also say
5a} the force of gravity draws two masses toward each other
5b} Mass generates a force of attraction that draws two masses toward each other.
Im just trying to follow a valid, logical common sense critical thinking pathway, that is clear, and would be accepted by as many scientist types in these cosmic field of what the hell is going specifically. Cause now it is not clear, as I presented in post 1.
You are talking about General Relativity and Quantum Physics, neither is amenable to “common sense” understanding, as Feynman said:
"The difficulty really is psychological and exists in the perpetual torment that results from your saying to yourself, 'But how can it be like that?"
Because quantum behavior and spacetime are fundamentally different from classical, common-sense experiences, they cannot be truly grasped through analogy, yet it perfectly matches experimental results.
