>>12061153>every model is a re description of the real thing. A representation, an imitation.And? Again please provide an explanation that is not a description, model, etc. Show us true reality in and of itself, oh wise one! You can't, you fucking hypocrite.
>Ad infinitum.I'm not seeing any refutation there of space being empirically verified. Try again.
>>but time is a measurement itselfNo time is a dimension of the spacetime manifold. It's like saying left is a measurement.
>I can't. Sorry.Then you're a fucking hypocrite.
>And you used two non-empirically verified things to do so. No I didn't. Why are you lying?
>Unfortunately space or time has no properties to cause anything so this is not an accurate explanation.Spacetime has curvature which causes gravity. Your bullshit fails immediately.
>Because like I said, "Space" and "time" don't actually exist to be modeled in the first place.They are modeled and the model is empirically verified. Your bullshit fails immediately.
>Correct you are! It is a description of heat doing something.So it's not an expansion according to your definition. So answer the question.
>When specifically "air" is heated it expands, it's motion and magnitude increases. When the heat is taken away, the air contracts and condense. These are descriptions, not "explanations." Try again. Also, why does air do this? And don't you dare give me another description.
Wow this sure is fun, I can simply reject any explanation you give me and automatically win any debate without actually saying anything substantive.
>I missed the "should", but if you're going that route then "by necessity". If it's "necessary" (which by the way is a description and not an explanation) then say that.
>You seem to think everything happens out of chaos despite visible order and structure to things?Order, structure, and chaos are simply descriptions of what we observe. And as you have taught me, descriptions are not real.
