AWKWARD ZOMBIE

I'm saying that space is an abstraction, while mass can be measured. Last I checked, abstractions can't perform measurable acts. If you disagree, move some space around and tell me what happened. Space doesn't flow, fields do.

I am just telling you what I have been told.
That being said I am not sure of how to explain it or prove to you how it does.
So I will concede for now.

Mass moves toward mass in a vacuum. That's gravity. SOMETHING is between those two hunks of mass attracting them together. The fabric analogy is a cute representation, but it doesn't actually explain what's going on. Flowing space is just as good an explanation.

Space could be used to define field strength, but not much more.

This is basically how I was shown it works.

Imagine you have a flowing river that leads to a waterfall. The waterfall object is extremely massive and the water is space being pulled toward it. Anything on the river that is not massive enough will flow with the river toward the waterfall. So the more massive object will pull the space and the less massive object exists in space and gets pulled with it so the less massive object moves toward it.

Not the perfect example since it doesn't cover orbits or the mutual pull they have, but there it is.

Imagine a fabric stretched flat. Now place all the objects with mass on the fabric. Now make the fabric space and you have the concept of gravity. Space(time) is merely a plane of existence, with mass and electricity distorting said plane.

Space might be so complex that no analogies can describe it perfectly. The same might apply to time.

Here's the time travel thing I mentioned a while back, to I initially planned to explain it more thoroughly:

As Exeres said, time is relative to velocity. Basically, the faster you go, the slower 'events' occur to you relative to a motionless observer. This applies to biochemical reactions as well.

Now let's look at the following situation: a mother and a daughter. The mother is an astronaut. She's undertaking a very long space trip, let's say she'll follow a simple parabolic trajectory to the edge of the solar system, by means of massive propulsion from Earth. To achieve this, she'll of course have to reach enormous speeds. As I said before, this means time will be passing slower as well. If the speed is large enough, when the mother comes back, she could be younger than the daughter! She'll have effectively travelled to the future.

Note however that it's not in this way conceivable to travel to the past. Also, it's important to remember that the rate at which time passes is independent of the direction of the velocity. This means you can't slow time down or go back in time by moving fast in the opposite direction.

The best thing is that this isn't just theory, it has actually been put into practice! I don't remember the details of the experiment, but it went something like this: They took 2 atom clocks, calibrated them to run exactly alike and put one in their fastest plane and circled the world a couple of times. When they put the clocks next to each other again, the one that went into plane was effectively a couple of seconds behind on the other one!

Apparently, the guy who invented bran flakes also invented the electric blanket.

That is one smart dude.

Yes. I had an argument with a friend yesterday about this. He didn't really pay attention in maths class.

There's a quicker way to prove that.

.999... = .333...
3

1 = .333...
3

I hope that's clear, I didn't feel like opening MSPaint for this.

I don't understand, could you add more trollface

Yup, but that's less convoluted so less likely to trick someone into thinking it's a troll .

Ta-da.



In other news, we started going over evolution in Biology class, which of course was preceded by a ten-minute disclaimer by a Roman Catholic professor saying that religion and evolution aren't necessarily at odds.