There is ample support for both views

You're right, I do disagree there. The support is mostly illusory. "Gravitational waves" are imagined guesswork based on vibrations in the Earth. Light bending around the sun doesn't happen in "empty space" it only happens through the photosphere where there is atmosphere.

And of course special relativity is not actually used in GPS, since relativity calls for an apparent symmetrical effect, not an asymmetric lasting time dilation.

Space-time is far more "magic" than gravity as a force. Gravity does act as a field force, however mysterious, a field force is a fairly well defined construct. Space-time is undefined. Think about it. How does "space-time" act on me while I'm standing still on Earth's surface? There is no clear coherent explanation from relativists, only convoluted ones. Or how does space-time act on a planet rotating around the sun? It isn't a "force" it isn't a "thing" which even "acts" on anything in any tangible physical way. There is no physical explanation there, it's all conceptual / mathematical.

In physics, something cannot act upon/through nothing

Tell that to Maxwell. That is the basis of electromagnetic force equations which work exceedingly well and describe reality very well. It is far superior to the illogic of space-time.

The "space time" is a mathematical description of the structure of the universe (aka aether).

It is and it isn't. In practice it is, and Einstein admitted it is, but all modern relativists claim relativity does away with an ether. So you have to ask them why they say that and Einstein doesn't.

Also it isn't really a physical description at all. It invents something truly fanciful, the idea that space+time is one object that does "things" to other objects. What those "things" are is not clear. If an object is moving it guides the object into an arc, which is more of an arc than the supposed light bending since otherwise it would appear to move in a straight line. And if you're on a stationary object it still pulls you towards the center just because and the curve space metaphor breaks down. It's a devolution from the idea of a field force. It adds a logically absurd concept of space-time.

Moreover, a given parcel of "space" doesn't contain "time". In Einstein's theory "time" is determined by relative velocity anyway. Space has no knowledge of something's relative velocity to something else.

So, far too many contradictions compared to Newton's straight forward approach with gravity.

There is ample support for both views

You're right, I do disagree there. The support is mostly illusory. "Gravitational waves" are imagined guesswork based on vibrations in the Earth. Light bending around the sun doesn't happen in "empty space" it only happens through the photosphere where there is atmosphere.

(And of course special relativity is not actually used in GPS, since relativity calls for an apparent symmetrical effect, not an asymmetric lasting time dilation)

Space-time is far more "magic" than gravity as a force. Gravity does act as a field force, however mysterious, a field force is a fairly well defined construct. Space-time is undefined. Think about it. How does "space-time" act on me while I'm standing still on Earth's surface? There is no clear coherent explanation from relativists, only convoluted ones. Or how does space-time act on a planet rotating around the sun? It isn't a "force" it isn't a "thing" which even "acts" on anything in any tangible physical way. There is no physical explanation there, it's all conceptual / mathematical.

In physics, something cannot act upon/through nothing

Tell that to Maxwell. That is the basis of electromagnetic force equations which work exceedingly well and describe reality very well. It is far superior to the illogic of space-time.

The "space time" is a mathematical description of the structure of the universe (aka aether).

It is and it isn't. In practice it is, and Einstein admitted it is, but all modern relativists claim relativity does away with an ether. So you have to ask them why they say that and Einstein doesn't.

Also it isn't really a physical description at all. It invents something truly fanciful, the idea that space+time is one object that does "things" to other objects. What those "things" are is not clear. If an object is moving it guides the object into an arc, which is more of an arc than the supposed light bending since otherwise it would appear to move in a straight line. And if you're on a stationary object it still pulls you towards the center just because and the curve space metaphor breaks down. It's a devolution from the idea of a field force. It adds a logically absurd concept of space-time.

Moreover, a given parcel of "space" doesn't contain "time". In Einstein's theory "time" is determined by relative velocity anyway. Space has no knowledge of something's relative velocity to something else.

So, far too many contradictions compared to Newton's straight forward approach with gravity.

There is ample support for both views

You're right, I do disagree there. The support is mostly illusory. "Gravitational waves" are imagined guesswork based on vibrations in the Earth. Light bending around the sun doesn't happen in "empty space" it only happens through the photosphere where there is atmosphere.

Space-time is far more "magic" than gravity as a force. Gravity does act as a field force, however mysterious, a field force is a fairly well defined construct. Space-time is undefined. Think about it. How does "space-time" act on me while I'm standing still on Earth's surface? There is no clear coherent explanation from relativists, only convoluted ones. Or how does space-time act on a planet rotating around the sun? It isn't a "force" it isn't a "thing" which even "acts" on anything in any tangible physical way. There is no physical explanation there, it's all conceptual / mathematical.

In physics, something cannot act upon/through nothing

Tell that to Maxwell. That is the basis of electromagnetic force equations which work exceedingly well and describe reality very well. It is far superior to the illogic of space-time.

The "space time" is a mathematical description of the structure of the universe (aka aether).

It is and it isn't. In practice it is, and Einstein admitted it is, but all modern relativists claim relativity does away with an ether. So you have to ask them why they say that and Einstein doesn't.

Also it isn't really a physical description at all. It invents something truly fanciful, the idea that space+time is one object that does "things" to other objects. What those "things" are is not clear. If an object is moving it guides the object into an arc, which is more of an arc than the supposed light bending since otherwise it would appear to move in a straight line. And if you're on a stationary object it still pulls you towards the center just because and the curve space metaphor breaks down. It's a devolution from the idea of a field force. It adds a logically absurd concept of space-time.

Moreover, a given parcel of "space" doesn't contain "time". In Einstein's theory "time" is determined by relative velocity anyway. Space has no knowledge of something's relative velocity to something else.

So, far too many contradictions compared to Newton's straight forward approach with gravity.

There is ample support for both views

You're right, I do disagree there. The support is mostly illusory. "Gravitational waves" are imagined guesswork based on vibrations in the Earth. Light bending around the sun doesn't happen in "empty space" it only happens through the photosphere where there is atmosphere.

Space-time is far more "magic" than gravity as a force. Gravity does act as a field force, however mysterious, a field force is a fairly well defined construct. Space-time is undefined. Think about it. How does "space-time" act on me while I'm standing still on Earth's surface? There is no clear coherent explanation from relativists, only convoluted ones. Or how does space-time act on a planet rotating around the sun? It isn't a "force" it isn't a "thing" which even "acts" on anything in any tangible physical way. There is no physical explanation there, it's all conceptual / mathematical.

In physics, something cannot act upon/through nothing

Tell that to Maxwell. That is the basis of electromagnetic force equations which work exceedingly well and describe reality very well. It is far superior to the illogic of space-time.

The "space time" is a mathematical description of the structure of the universe (aka aether).

It is and it isn't. In practice it is, and Einstein admitted it is, but all modern relativists claim relativity does away with an ether. So you have to ask them why they say that and Einstein doesn't.

Also it isn't really a physical description at all. It invents something truly fanciful, the idea that space+time is one object that does "things" to other objects. What those "things" are is not clear. If an object is moving it guides the object into an arc, which is more of an arc than the supposed light bending since otherwise it would appear to move in a straight line. And if you're on a stationary object it still pulls you towards the center just because and the curve space metaphor breaks down. It's a devolution from the idea of a field force. It adds a logically absurd concept of space-time.

Moreover, a given parcel of "space" doesn't contain "time". In Einstein's theory "time" is determined by relative velocity anyway. Space has no knowledge of something's relative velocity to something else.

So far too many contradictions compared to Newton's straight forward approach with gravity.

There is ample support for both views

You're right, I do disagree there. The support is mostly illusory. "Gravitational waves" are imagined guesswork based on vibrations in the Earth. Light bending around the sun doesn't happen in "empty space" it only happens through the photosphere where there is atmosphere.

Space-time is far more "magic" than gravity as a force. Gravity does act as a field force, however mysterious, a field force is a fairly well defined construct. Space-time is undefined. Think about it. How does "space-time" act on me while I'm standing still on Earth's surface? There is no clear coherent explanation from relativists, only convoluted ones. Or how does space-time act on a planet rotating around the sun? It isn't a "force" it isn't a "thing" which even "acts" on anything in any tangible physical way. There is no physical explanation there, it's all conceptual / mathematical.

In physics, something cannot act upon/through nothing

Tell that to Maxwell. That is the basis of electromagnetic force equations which work exceedingly well and describe reality very well. It is far superior to the illogic of space-time.

The "space time" is a mathematical description of the structure of the universe (aka aether).

It is and it isn't. In practice it is, and Einstein admitted it is, but all modern relativists claim relativity does away with an ether. So you have to ask them why they say that and Einstein doesn't.

Also it isn't really a physical description at all. It invents something truly fanciful, the idea that space+time is one object that does "things" to other objects. What those "things" are is not clear. If an object is moving it guides the object into an arc (though acting like a field force), which is more of an arc than the supposed light bending since otherwise it would appear to move in a straight line. And if you're on a stationary object it still pulls you towards the center just because and the curve space metaphor breaks down. It's a devolution from the idea of a field force. It adds a logically absurd concept of space-time.

Moreover, a given parcel of "space" doesn't contain "time". In Einstein's theory "time" is determined by relative velocity anyway. Space has no knowledge of something's relative velocity to something else.

So far too many contradictions compared to Newton's straight forward approach with gravity.

There is ample support for both views

You're right, I do disagree there. The support is mostly illusory. "Gravitational waves" are imagined guesswork based on vibrations in the Earth. Light bending around the sun doesn't happen in "empty space" it only happens through the photosphere where there is atmosphere.

Space-time is far more "magic" than gravity as a force. Gravity does act as a field force, however mysterious, a field force is a fairly well defined construct. Space-time is undefined. Think about it. How does "space-time" act on me while I'm standing still on Earth's surface? There is no clear coherent explanation from relativists, only convoluted ones. Or how does space-time act on a planet rotating around the sun? It isn't a "force" it isn't a "thing" which even "acts" on anything in any tangible physical way. There is no physical explanation there, it's all conceptual / mathematical.

In physics, something cannot act upon/through nothing

Tell that to Maxwell. That is the basis of electromagnetic force equations which work exceedingly well and describe reality very well. It is far superior to the illogic of space-time.

The "space time" is a mathematical description of the structure of the universe (aka aether).

It is and it isn't. In practice it is, and Einstein admitted it is, but all modern relativists claim relativity does away with an ether. So you have to ask them why they say that and Einstein doesn't.

Also it isn't really a physical description at all. It invents something truly fanciful, the idea that space+time is one object that does "things" to other objects. What those "things" are is not clear. If an object is moving it pushes the object into an arc (though acting like a field force) and if you're on a stationary object it still pulls you towards the center just because and the curve space metaphor breaks down. It's a devolution from the idea of a field force. It adds a logically absurd concept of space-time.

Moreover, a given parcel of "space" doesn't contain "time". In Einstein's theory "time" is determined by relative velocity anyway. Space has no knowledge of something's relative velocity to something else.

So far too many contradictions compared to Newton's straight forward approach with gravity.

There is ample support for both views

You're right, I do disagree there. The support is mostly illusory. "Gravitational waves" are imagined guesswork based on vibrations in the Earth. Light bending around the sun doesn't happen in "empty space" it only happens through the photosphere where there is atmosphere.

Space-time is far more "magic" than gravity as a force. Gravity does act as a field force, however mysterious, a field force is a fairly well defined construct. Space-time is undefined. Think about it. How does "space-time" act on me while I'm standing still on Earth's surface? There is no clear coherent explanation from relativists, only convoluted ones. Or how does space-time act on a planet rotating around the sun? It isn't a "force" it isn't a "thing" which even "acts" on anything in any tangible physical way. There is no physical explanation there, it's all conceptual / mathematical.

In physics, something cannot act upon/through nothing

Tell that to Maxwell. That is the basis of electromagnetic force equations which work exceedingly well and describe reality very well. It is far superior to the illogic of space-time.

The "space time" is a mathematical description of the structure of the universe (aka aether).

It is and it isn't. In practice it is, and Einstein admitted it is, but all modern relativists claim relativity does away with an ether. So you have to ask them why they say that and Einstein doesn't.

Also it isn't really a physical description at all. It invents something truly fanciful, the idea that space+time is one object that does "things" to other objects. What those "things" are is not clear. If an object is moving it pushes the object into an arc (though acting like a field force) and if you're on a stationary object it still pulls you towards the center just because and the curve space metaphor breaks down. It's a devolution from the idea of a field force. It adds a logically absurd concept of space-time.

Moreover, a given parcel of "space" doesn't contain "time". In Einstein's theory "time" is determined by relative velocity anyway. Space has no knowledge of something's relative velocity to something else.

There is ample support for both views

You're right, I do disagree there. The support is mostly illusory. "Gravitational waves" are imagined guesswork based on vibrations in the Earth. Light bending around the sun doesn't happen in "empty space" it only happens through the photosphere where there is atmosphere.

Space-time is far more "magic" than gravity as a force. Gravity does act as a field force, however mysterious, a field force is a fairly well defined construct. Space-time is undefined. Think about it. How does "space-time" act on me while I'm standing still on Earth's surface? There is no clear coherent explanation from relativists, only convoluted ones. Or how does space-time act on a planet rotating around the sun? It isn't a "force" it isn't a "thing" which even "acts" on anything in any tangible physical way. There is no physical explanation there, it's all conceptual / mathematical.

In physics, something cannot act upon/through nothing

Tell that to Maxwell. That is the basis of electromagnetic force equations which work exceedingly well and describe reality very well. It is far superior to the illogic of space-time.

The "space time" is a mathematical description of the structure of the universe (aka aether).

It is and it isn't. In practice it is, and Einstein admitted it is, but all modern relativists claim relativity does away with an ether. So you have to ask them why they say that and Einstein doesn't.

Also it isn't really a physical description at all. It invents something truly fanciful, the idea that space+time is one object that does "things" to other objects. What those "things" are is not clear. If an object is moving it pushes the object into an arc (though acting like a field force) and if you're on a stationary object it still pulls you towards the center just because and the curve space metaphor breaks down. It's a devolution from the idea of a field force. It adds a logically absurd concept of space-time.

A given parcel of "space" doesn't contain "time". In Einstein's theory "time" is determined by relative velocity anyway. Space has no knowledge of something's relative velocity to something else.

There is ample support for both views

You're right, I do disagree there. The support is mostly illusory. "Gravitational waves" are imagined guesswork based on vibrations in the Earth. Light bending around the sun doesn't happen in "empty space" it only happens through the photosphere where there is atmosphere.

Space-time is far more "magic" than gravity as a force. Gravity does act as a field force, however mysterious, a field force is a fairly well defined construct. Space-time is undefined. Think about it. How does "space-time" act on me while I'm standing still on Earth's surface? There is no clear coherent explanation from relativists, only convoluted ones. Or how does space-time act on a planet rotating around the sun? It isn't a "force" it isn't a "thing" which even "acts" on anything in any tangible physical way. There is no physical explanation there, it's all conceptual / mathematical.

In physics, something cannot act upon/through nothing

Tell that to Maxwell. That is the basis of electromagnetic force equations which work exceedingly well and describe reality very well. Far superior to the illogic of space-time.

The "space time" is a mathematical description of the structure of the universe (aka aether).

It is and it isn't. In practice it is, and Einstein admitted it is, but all modern relativists claim relativity does away with an ether. So you have to ask them why they say that and Einstein doesn't.

Also it isn't really a physical description at all. It invents something truly fanciful, the idea the space+time is one object that does "things" to other objects. What those "things" are is not clear. If an object is moving it pushes the object into an arc (though acting like a field force) and if you're on a stationary object it still pulls you towards the center just because. It's a devolution from the idea of a field force. It adds a logically absurd concept of space-time.

A given parcel of "space" doesn't contain "time". In Einstein's theory "time" is determined by relative velocity anyway. Space has no knowledge of something's relative velocity to something else.