>>11315103Holy fuck, you're referring to me! Nice.
I only really looked at OP's post, can you link yours so I can take a look?
>Space-time is a property of matter.So, space-time being a property of matter is the only way I can see to truly break away from the aether thing. Fields seem to just be a re-interpretation of the aether, without any explanation for their existence or what holds them in place.
Treating fields, or space-time, as a property of particles might not sound much better, but it's the same as saying particles have properties (that diminish with distance). And particles are defined BY having properties, which is the sort of base reasoning I like and think you're looking for.
It also doesn't take away from the fields thing either, nothing changes about them if they're defined by matter instead of just...hanging around.
>We don't observe space-time that is beyond matter.Theoretically the reach of gravity is infinite. We can't observe anything further than infinitely far away.
>Unfortunately it does not explain the cause of gravityThis might be fundamentally unanswerable, so I defer to the anthropic principle. A universe without gravity would rip itself apart immediately following it's existence. There needs to be a pure "pull" force to hold the universe together, in our universe, that pull is determined by mass.
>space-time has a property of densityI actually came up with this whilst trying to understand the galaxy rotation problem. If space-time has a density that increases with gravity, then the term "gravity distorts space-time" means something.
It also means that the path of light gets distorted, resulting in gravitational lensing. Which is great, because I haven't seen an explanation for gravitational lensing beyond "that's what the mathematics tells us", whereas comparing it to optical lensing, where differing densities in the medium the light is travelling through distorts the path of light, is much more intuitive.