[stacyjones (OP)]

If spacetime has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is displaced by matter are Einstein's gravitational wave and de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality both waves in it?

Does spacetime having mass relate general relativity and quantum mechanics?

If spacetime has mass is the "missing mass" the mass of the spacetime connected to and neighboring the matter which is displaced by the matter?

If spacetime has mass is the state of displacement of the spacetime the physical manifestation of curved spacetime?

[Atomic-S]

If spacetime has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space

Clarification, please: How can spacetime, having four dimensions, physically occupy three-dimensional space without also occupying time?

and is displaced by matter are Einstein's gravitational wave and de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality both waves in it?

On the basis of vague general considerations, it is within the realm of possibility. But who knows? 

Does spacetime having mass relate general relativity and quantum mechanics

Who knows?  If it does, we need some concrete math to show just how.

If spacetime has mass is the "missing mass" the mass of the spacetime connected to and neighboring the matter which is displaced by the matter?

The best current understanding of the way matter displaces spacetime is Einstein's gravitational equations, and it is my understanding that the distortions predicted by these equations are already known, and do not include the "dark matter" that has not been accounted for.  Dark matter remains unexplained, but Einstein's equations for the distortion of spacetime by matter do not account for it.  To account for it, they would have to be revised, but such a revision would in all likelihood result in a form in which the additional displacement, which you would interpret as dark matter, would be symmetrically distributed about existing visible matter (at rest with the observer, or symmetrically distributed with respect to both its energy and momentum if moving with respect to the observer).  A key question therefore is:  Is the distribution of dark matter in the universe, as observed by astronomers, consistent with such a relationship with visible matter? 

is the state of displacement of the spacetime the physical manifestation of curved spacetime?

Quite possibly this is true by definition, but really tells us nothing.

If spacetime has mass is the state of displacement of the spacetime the physical manifestation of curved spacetime

Whether or not spacetime has mass really has nothing to do with the statement that follows, which basically is self-verifying simply by reason of linguistic redundancy.

[stacyjones (OP)]

Clarification, please: How can spacetime, having four dimensions, physically occupy three-dimensional space without also occupying time?

Everything is with respect to the state of the spacetime in which they exist, including the atomic clocks used to determine the speed of light. This is why the speed of light is always determined to be 'c'. The faster an atomic clock moves through spacetime the greater the displacement of spacetime by the clock the greater the pressure exerted by the displaced spacetime toward and throughout the clock the slower the clock ticks. Gravitational pressure is the pressure exerted by the displaced spacetime. The Earth displaces spacetime. The displaced spacetime pushes back and exerts pressure toward the Earth. The pressure exerted toward and throughout the Earth by the displaced spacetime is gravity. The greater the pressure exerted toward and through an atomic clock the slower it ticks.

The best current understanding of the way matter displaces spacetime is Einstein's gravitational equations, and it is my understanding that the distortions predicted by these equations are already known, and do not include the "dark matter" that has not been accounted for.  Dark matter remains unexplained, but Einstein's equations for the distortion of spacetime by matter do not account for it.  To account for it, they would have to be revised, but such a revision would in all likelihood result in a form in which the additional displacement, which you would interpret as dark matter, would be symmetrically distributed about existing visible matter (at rest with the observer, or symmetrically distributed with respect to both its energy and momentum if moving with respect to the observer).  A key question therefore is:  Is the distribution of dark matter in the universe, as observed by astronomers, consistent with such a relationship with visible matter? 

There is no such thing as dark matter. The "missing mass" is the mass of the spacetime connected to and neighboring the matter which is displaced by the matter. The Milky Way's halo is lopsided because it is moving through and displacing spacetime, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water. The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of spacetime.

Whether or not spacetime has mass really has nothing to do with the statement that follows, which basically is self-verifying simply by reason of linguistic redundancy.

Exactly. The geometrical representation of gravity as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of spacetime.

[Atomic-S]

The Milky Way's halo is lopsided because it is moving through and displacing spacetime, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

Then presumably, we are able to calculate the speed of the Milky Way (that of its center of mass) with respect to the spacetime through which it is traveling. Meaning, if that is so, then we know how to come to a state of rest with respect to spacetime.  That presumably would be an absolute zero of velocity, at least as it applies to our local vicinity. If there is an absolute zero of velocity, then is or is not the speed of light seen to be the same for all inertial observers regardless of their speed?  And if it is the same for all inertial observers, then how can that be reconciled with the idea that light is the propagation of a wave in the spacetime that has a definite fixed state of rest?

[Atomic-S]

The faster an atomic clock moves through spacetime the greater the displacement of spacetime by the clock the greater the pressure exerted by the displaced spacetime toward and throughout the clock the slower the clock ticks.

Then if I am moving along with the clock, spacetime exerts more pressure on me than an observer fixed at "rest", so that my time will be slowed like that of the clock, and the clock will seem to be to be running normally. One problem, however:  according to your analysis of the Milky Way halo, spacetime has a definite state of rest, at least as pertains to the vicinity of the experiments in question.  Therefore, an observer back on the "ground" who is at rest with respect to spacetime, is experiencing less pressure from spacetime than is the observer moving with the flying clock, and therefore his time will be running faster, because it is not pressured. And, I who am flying with the flying clock should observe his clock as running faster than mine.  One problem: Einstein's equations as well as experiment say that's not the way it is:  To me who am flying, the ground clock will seem to be running slower, not faster, than mine, even as mine seems to the ground observer to be running slower than his.  This contradiction cannot be resolved if spacetime has a definite state of rest.

[Atomic-S]

Gravitational pressure is the pressure exerted by the displaced spacetime. The Earth displaces spacetime. The displaced spacetime pushes back and exerts pressure toward the Earth.

This is a different phomenon than when spacetime allegedly exerts pressure on an object moving with uniform speed. The Principle of Equivalence declares that gravitational effects are indistinguishable to the affected observer from those produced by acceleration.

[stacyjones (OP)]

The Milky Way's halo is lopsided because it is moving through and displacing spacetime, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

Then presumably, we are able to calculate the speed of the Milky Way (that of its center of mass) with respect to the spacetime through which it is traveling. Meaning, if that is so, then we know how to come to a state of rest with respect to spacetime.  That presumably would be an absolute zero of velocity, at least as it applies to our local vicinity. If there is an absolute zero of velocity, then is or is not the speed of light seen to be the same for all inertial observers regardless of their speed?  And if it is the same for all inertial observers, then how can that be reconciled with the idea that light is the propagation of a wave in the spacetime that has a definite fixed state of rest?

The question is relative to what? If we consider 'stuff' to fill 'empty' space then how do we know if that 'stuff' is at rest, or not? What if dark energy are massive photons continuously emitted by a Universal black hole which are flowing through our Universe, causing the galaxy clusters to be pushed away from us? What if everything in our visible Universe is moving relative to the sea of photons? Then the question becomes, what if our visible Universe is moving? Then again, the question is, moving relative to what?

[stacyjones (OP)]

The faster an atomic clock moves through spacetime the greater the displacement of spacetime by the clock the greater the pressure exerted by the displaced spacetime toward and throughout the clock the slower the clock ticks.

Then if I am moving along with the clock, spacetime exerts more pressure on me than an observer fixed at "rest", so that my time will be slowed like that of the clock, and the clock will seem to be to be running normally. One problem, however:  according to your analysis of the Milky Way halo, spacetime has a definite state of rest, at least as pertains to the vicinity of the experiments in question.  Therefore, an observer back on the "ground" who is at rest with respect to spacetime, is experiencing less pressure from spacetime than is the observer moving with the flying clock, and therefore his time will be running faster, because it is not pressured. And, I who am flying with the flying clock should observe his clock as running faster than mine.  One problem: Einstein's equations as well as experiment say that's not the way it is:  To me who am flying, the ground clock will seem to be running slower, not faster, than mine, even as mine seems to the ground observer to be running slower than his.  This contradiction cannot be resolved if spacetime has a definite state of rest.

Spacetime does not have a definite state of rest.

'Hafele and Keating Experiment'
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html

"Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip"

The clocks flying eastward were flying into a spacetime 'headwind' causing them to tick slower. The clocks flying westward were flying "with the spacetime" allowing them to tick faster.

Then that spacetime is being displaced by the Sun, and the spacetime is being displaced by all of the matter in the Milky Way. And again, what if the 'stuff' that is being displaced is a sea of massive photons flowing through our visible Universe? Again, the question becomes, flowing relative to what?

[stacyjones (OP)]

Gravitational pressure is the pressure exerted by the displaced spacetime. The Earth displaces spacetime. The displaced spacetime pushes back and exerts pressure toward the Earth.

This is a different phomenon than when spacetime allegedly exerts pressure on an object moving with uniform speed. The Principle of Equivalence declares that gravitational effects are indistinguishable to the affected observer from those produced by acceleration.

The spacetime displaced by the Earth pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Earth is constantly pushing against you and keeping you 'tied' to the Earth. This is the same as if you are accelerating through the spacetime. As long as you are accelerating your are feeling the addition pressure exerted by the displaced spacetime toward and throughout you. Once you are moving with constant momentum then you are displacing the spacetime and the spacetime is displacing you with equal force.

[alancalverd]

Does spacetime have mass?

No.

[stacyjones (OP)]

Does spacetime have mass?

No.

Does the 'stuff' that fills 'empty' space have mass?

Yes.

Is it displaced by matter?

Yes.

Is what is referred to geometrically as the curvature of spacetime physically exist in nature as the state of displacement of the 'stuff' which fill 'empty' space?

Yes.

Is the "missing mass" the mass of the 'stuff' which fills 'empty' space connected to and neighboring the matter which is displaced by the matter?

Yes.

Are Einstein's gravitational wave and de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality both waves in the 'stuff' which fills 'empty' space.

Yes.

Does the 'stuff' which fills 'empty' space displaced by matter relate general relativity and quantum mechanics?

Yes.

[PmbPhy]

If spacetime has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is displaced by matter are Einstein's gravitational wave and de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality both waves in it?

Note: Your question is very poorly worded. So bad that its hard for me to understand what you're asking. Can you please reword it for me? Thanks!

No. Spacetime does not have mass.  First, spacetime is a 4-dimensional manifold, i.e. its a mathematical object only. Its the set of all events where an event, X, is the union of a time, t, and a point in space, r. Therefore X = (t, r) = (t, x, y, z). Its not possible for such a thing to be displaced by matter.

Does spacetime having mass relate general relativity and quantum mechanics?

No.

If spacetime has mass is the "missing mass" the mass of the spacetime connected to and neighboring the matter which is displaced by the matter?

Although you ended that sentence with a question mark it does not read like a question. Please rephrase. In any case, the answer is no.

[evan_au]

The spacetime displaced by the Earth pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Earth is constantly pushing against you and keeping you 'tied' to the Earth.

This implies that the Earth is orbiting through this spacetime, and pushing this spacetime aside keeps you and the atmosphere fastened to the Earth (what we call "gravity").

But here in the antipodes, I have a problem. If this spacetime is pushing you towards the center of the Earth, then it must be sucking me off the Earth (and sucking away the atmosphere over my head, too).

But when my class did the experiment in high school, we worked out that objects fell with an acceleration of about 10m/s² (with a significant measurement error, as I recall). But pretty much what you would measure other places on the Earth.

So I don't see how pushing spacetime aside can account for gravity... (unless you also believe in a flat Earth?)

Edit: Corrected spelling...

[puppypower]

In Special Relativity, changes in space-time, due to velocity, will generate changes in relativistic mass. Velocity does not alter rest mass. However, if rest mass is in motion with velocity V, the inertia and the momentum of any amount of rest mass, will appear to increase. This is why it would take infinity energy to move even a small about of rest mass at speed of light, even though the speed of light is finite. The mass seems to get heavier without the rest mass changing; relativistic mass. 

Say hypothetically, we have had 1 kg of rest mass moving close enough to the speed of light that its relativistic mass has the equivalence of 1000 kg of mass; 1000 times momentum equivalence. If we put on the brakes, we end up with 1000 times as much energy equivalent as rest mass, given off as brake heat. With that much brake heat, the mass would glow, expand and even vaporize into sub-particles. The result is GR will now  lower due to the mass density getting lower; expands. With the matter converting to free sub-particles, due to the heat, these will quickly convert to energy. 

This scenario is able to convert rest mass to energy via added energy followed by a deceleration. The initial added energy for the acceleration toward C, to gain the relativistic mass, adds activation energy; see below. Velocity has the units of d/t, while acceleration has the units of d/t/t, the unit difference added was some extra time=t. What the scenario does is use time potential to convert mass M into energy. Energy has the units of d-t (wavelength-frequency). There is no mass left.




What keeps the sub particles lingering in the semi-permanent state we call rest mass, compared to the life expectancy of free sub-particles, is connected to time dilation stored with the sub-particles of composite matter. By adding additional time potential, above, I walked the sub particles time dilation, backwards, to place where they don't last as long; mass to energy. 

[stacyjones (OP)]

Note: Your question is very poorly worded. So bad that its hard for me to understand what you're asking. Can you please reword it for me? Thanks!

Does the 'stuff' that fills 'empty' space have mass?

Yes.

Is it displaced by matter?

Yes.

Is what is referred to geometrically as the curvature of spacetime physically exist in nature as the state of displacement of the 'stuff' which fill 'empty' space?

Yes.

Is the "missing mass" the mass of the 'stuff' which fills 'empty' space connected to and neighboring the matter which is displaced by the matter?

Yes.

Are Einstein's gravitational wave and de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality both waves in the 'stuff' which fills 'empty' space.

Yes.

Does the 'stuff' which fills 'empty' space displaced by matter relate general relativity and quantum mechanics?

Yes.

[stacyjones (OP)]

This implies that the Earth is orbiting through this spacetime, and pushing this spacetime aside keeps you and the atmosphere fastened to the Earth (what we call "gravity").

But here in the antipodies, I have a problem. If this spacetime is pushing you towards the center of the Earth, then it must be sucking me off the Earth (and sucking away the atmosphere over my head, too).

But when my class did the experiment in high school, we worked out that objects fell with an acceleration of about 10m/s² (with a significant measurement error, as I recall). But pretty much what you would measure other places on the Earth.

So I don't see how pushing spacetime aside can account for gravity... (unless you also believe in a flat Earth?)

The following video represents the state of displacement of the aether.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

"Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University.

Honey has mass and so does the aether. The swirl is the state of displacement of the aether.

[stacyjones (OP)]

In Special Relativity, changes in space-time, due to velocity, will generate changes in relativistic mass.

'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

"It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ... Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox) corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.

[guest39538]

The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object

That is not true, the true ''mass'' of any particle is 0, ''mass'' is the combined result of plural, particles. A single particle has no ''mass'' it only  has entropy. ''Mass'' is the result of ''gravitational'' influence of two or more particles acting on each other.
''Space-time'' the interwoven manifold of 3 dimensions and a forth dimension of ''time'' is a virtual representation we use to quantify space, it does not exist with any ''physicality''. 
Space-time does not have mass.

Does the 'stuff'

Please define stuff

[jeffreyH]

Stacyjones the space between your ears should have mass and the ability to displace misconceptions. However you have proved to everyone very adequately that this is in fact untrue.

[stacyjones (OP)]

Please define stuff

That which physically occupies three dimensional space.