>>11312691>You can't, but that still doesn't make an explanation a description.
Give an explanation that's not a description then.>Well then stop replying to me then, batman.
Sure, as soon as you give up on your schizo shitposting.>And a broken clock is right twice a day. I too can state the obvious.
Apparently it's not obvious since you won't accept the numerous tests of general relativity as proof.>Which is what I did not ask for. I asked for "actual spacetime".
Spacetime curvature is actual spacetime, so I'm not sure what you're whining about. Actually I am sure, you will just complain about any irrelevant thing because you are in denial of reality.>Your distinction without a difference doesn't make sense.
I didn't make a distinction, I said they're the same.>Unless you want to explain what "Spacetime" is.
I did, what specifically do you need explained?>Which is literally another way of saying "this is a description of what spacetime does"
Yes, and observing whether something which spacetime does actually occurs is a test for whether spacetime is real. Fucking dense retard.>Which is a description that uses the currently unexplained "spacetime" as the explanation as to why it is described to do this.
Yes, that's how models work.>which is an explanation....of what duties the probe was programmed to describe(measure).
Yes, so what?>So which is it?
Both. Are you seriously this illiterate?>refer to the beginning of >>11312443
Refer to my response.