>>13496200>Then don't ask vague questions. Sorry they come off as vague, this is what happens when you ask questions that which has no useful info to derive from (because space has no properties and time is a measure).
>Part of the manifold in which events are located. Like a fictional story? What?
>Pressure of what?Well a medium of some sort I presume. I know for a fact it's not just "nothing", from nothing comes nothing.
>I'm referring to space, remember. A vacuum or non-vacuum would be located in space.How if not with disparity of pressure?
>I'm not referring to something in space. If "space" is part of the manifold IN which events lie, is a vacuum or non-vacuum considered a non event then?
>Sure, that doesn't imply they have any meaning put together in this context.And when put together "spacetime" does?
>It has the same effect.Well isn't that just absolutely frustrating? Wonder what that feels like.
>isn't necessary to test a theoryTo test what a theory alleges exists?
>Too bad, the theory is successfulAt describing accurately things that don't exist. I never contended this fact. It does this extraordinarily well. So does GamesWorkshop
>Scientifically refute it>there is no science there to refute Done! Unless you want me to refute descriptions? Why would I refute how a unicorn is described? How pointless, they don't even exist.
>Scientific tests test theories.Do they hook the one who theorizes up to a lie detector to see if he's telling the truth? If I ask them what light is will the detector also give me two answers?
>Please explain what parts of the tests of GR are not real.I am not about to explain what is not real. I wil wait for a test that shows that "Space" and "time" are actual subjects worthy of being investigated.
>So why don't you just shit or get off the pot and do that yourselfI tried, but you too will discover how difficult it is to put...whatever this "Space" is an arbitrary measure into any kind of experiment.
