>>12537760No, it's an effect of curved spacetime.
"Spacetime" is a description. Are we really going to go down this path again?
>Being in reality is not in questionIt should be the first question you ask before attempting to investigate
>the question is which description of reality is correct?Describing the unicorn doesn't mean anything.
>How do you determine that?Uh...by testing "the thing in reality".
>I don't know what an imaginary idea is "in reality."A unicorn for instance is an imaginary creature that doesn't exist, yet is still describable.
>You're obviously starting with the premise that gravity is imaginaryNo, it's a description. It's real, as a description.
>therefore reject any explanation of it as "imaginary." No, the explanation is that it's a description...of mass accelerating to mass. It's not imaginary. The idea that it causes and is a force is imaginary, it IS but a description.
>So magnets don't attract?How do they "attract"? It's described they "attract", but that doesn't explain anything.
>But we do.We really don't. A lot of people still confuse these descriptions as something in and of themselves. Such as "gravity" or "magnetism" as a force, it's just an expression of a field.
>No, magnetism has nothing to do with mass.And yet I still observe two masses attracting to each other, as in the case of gravity.
>They don't. Differentiate them. Both describe mass attracting mass.
Descriptions of what?
"Mass attracting mass". So "descriptions of what mass does".
>What isn't a description to you?An explanation
>Magnetism is merely related to the electromagnetic forceThat doesn't really tell me much desu
>and gravity is acceleration "yes". gravity is "mass accelerating to mass". That isn't something specific
>caused by traveling along geodesics without a force.So it's not a force, we agree on that. "Traveling along geodesics" of what? A geodesic is a representation. What is being represented?
