[Kryptid]

We already know that it does so I don't know what your arguement will be.

Then you need to find a test that can distinguish your model from relativity, because relativity predicts the same thing.

WPOS

No, we are not tolerating insults. Consider this strike two (the first strike was spamming the other thread of yours with poetry).

[Bored chemist]

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the OP is a troll.
Nobody could be that dim.

Bored Chemist you are a WPOS

I am indeed a worthwhile person of substance.
I'm glad you spotted it.

Are you ever going to stop ranting and answer this?

It's rather rude of you to ignore my question
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 20:27:59
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on Today at 20:23:55
My proof is the femto camera experiment.
The what?

[puppypower]

For me, the bending of light when it passes a gravity field proves that light refracts when it hits a denser area of space which is the gravity field. It also proves that light waves and gravity fields are an effect on space. My proof is the femto camera experiment. Anyone who argues with either of these points is a misinformed stubborn armchair physicist.

Furthermore since two gravity fields pull objects together using space alone, it is likely that the particle's that make a gravity field are themselves composed of very dense space. The equation is simple, two gravity fields composed of dense space will squeeze on each other just the way the particle of matter puts a squeezing on space in the first place.

Does this make sense?

If you compare space and time, space is a passive and/or reactive variable, while time is an active and dynamic variable. We measure space with a meter stick, which is a passive tool. The meter stick does not require batteries. Time is measured using a clock, which is a dynamic tool, requiring energy for it to work. These simple tools tell us something about the relative hierarchy of time and space. It is strange nobody notices this.

When you deal with space-time, space cannot change, outside the context of time, except at the speed of light. The change in the passive variable, space, is a reaction to dynamics that occurs in time, due to time and space being integrated.

Gravitational lensing is really a frequency shift or shift in time, with the distance or wavelength following the change in time. Gravity is an acceleration, which has the units d/t/t. Acceleration is two parts time and one part distance. Distance is being actively divided by two time vectors.

The wavelength first convention, derived from the phrase "space-time", implies space or the passive variable is leading. This is conceptually flawed. This tradition is left in place, since it supports other theory that needs the passive to lead the active. 

[Bored chemist]

. Acceleration is two parts time and one part distance. Distance is being actively divided by two time vectors.

That's meaningless.

[talanum1]

I agree that particles are made of space points.

The Voyagers reported denser space beyond the sun's influence. I expected it to get less dense.

[Bored chemist]

I agree that particles are made of space points.

You keep talking about these. But you seem unable to tell us what they are.
So, you are not talking about science.
Why do you do this?

[talanum1]

I can't tell you what they are but I can tell you they are represented by 4-tuples of numbers. That is scientific.

They are units of emptiness that can be superimposed on each other.