Mordred

When the universe was approximately 7.2 billion years old. According to dataset of Planck 2012. This is when the universe goes from the matter dominant era to the Lambda dominant. (cosmological constant aka dark energy). The Seperation distance rate was gradually slowing down (but still expanding) till then. You can fine tune the inflection point using the calc in my signature but you have to change the number of steps and start/end (stretch values) stretch is just inverted scale factor for ease of calcs. (if I recall Marcus included this as an example in the calculator guide.) Provided Jorrie didn't change it after Marcus passed away. (4 of us were involved in its development)

Tim are you not aware that when you use SR you are already using classical field equations? The minute you add coordinate mapping your mapping a field. The mathematics of symmetry groups just wasn't available when SR, Minkowskii and Einstein first proposed their models. The Field treatments were formalized later under symmetry groups. Block/evolving block doesn't add any field or particles. Lorentz ether does. It adds a substrate field of ether. (motionless matter) One that mysteriously has zero influence on anything. A reference frame is just a map of a field measured by an observer. A field is simply a collection of objects/events The equations you guys are using for time dilation/length contraction are just transformation equations between reference frames. Those transforms fall into the group [latex]h_{\mu\nu} [/latex] the [latex]\eta_{\mu\nu} [/latex] tells us the geometry of the field is approximately Euclidean. (ct,x,y,z) is a field coordinate map. Your already modelling the car in field theory. So other than showing how to derive the time dilation formula and contraction formula....However you already know how to derive gravitational time dilation/length contraction etc. (according to the statement "I understand SR") You guys have already shown the car example according to the EFE. SR is a subgroup of the EFE equations. falls under the Lorentz group/Poisson group. Lets play Quantify Lorentz Ether properties. Assume it is static and doesn't interact. considered a medium. What properties can we discern just using the above statement ? 1) comrised of fermionic particles (matter) 2) static follows spin statistics zero. So spin zero. 3) has no quage bosons, no mediator particles. (non interacting) (except maybe to itself, impossible to know ) This field will have geometry (x,y,z) it doesn't interact so it is invariant. All observers will measure (if possible lol) it the same. Question 2 if its non interacting, why include it? It has no effect on the kinematic motion of any other particle fields. Has no influence on time dilation or length contraction. More importantly as its non interacting there is no possible means to measure it. It has no influence. useless to include it into SR PS it doesn't make any difference if Ether flows or not. There is no known interaction with any other field or particle. Lets tackle this with an analogy. A neutrino is weakly interactive. It can literally cross a thousand light years of solid lead without a single interaction. For all intensive purposes the lead doesn't exist when modelling the path of the Neutrino. As there is no lead interaction it has zero influence on the neutrino path. (pointless to include the lead, no effect on neutrino path) Yes there definitely was a medium there but it has zero effect....zero influence upon path measurement. Anyways lets compare electromagnetism to gravity shall we... first define Newtonian geometry. [latex]ds^2=dx^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2[/latex] under rigid coordinate system transform rules [latex]\acute{t}=t, \acute{x}=x[/latex] time isn't a factor here... observer in primed frame is moving in the x direction at velocity v When you add time to the above you must preserve the Galilean transformations above. [latex]ds^2=\eta_{ij}dx^idj^j=-dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2[/latex] transform rules [latex]t^2=\frac{t-vx}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}[/latex],[latex]x^2=\frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}[/latex] Maxwell equations. [latex]\bigtriangledown\bullet\overrightarrow{B}=0[/latex] [latex]\bigtriangledown*\overrightarrow{E}+\frac{\partial\overrightarrow{B}}{\partial t}[/latex] [latex]\bigtriangledown\bullet\overrightarrow{E}=\rho[/latex] [latex]\bigtriangledown*\overrightarrow{B}-\frac{\partial\overrightarrow{E}}{\partial t=\overrightarrow{J}}[/latex] E and B are the electric field and magnetic field, J is current per area,(source current),rho is the charge per volume. using Minkowskii coordinates we can replace the spatial vector potential A and scalar potential [math]\phi[/math] with the single 4 vector component. [latex]A^\mu=(\phi,A^1,A^2,A^3)[/latex] through a lengthy procedure [latex]F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu A_\nu-\partial_\nu A_\mu[/latex] the field strength tensor. Please note no Ether required yet, nor needed to derive the above equations...use of rho is essentially a vacuum solution, the difference is you have a directional component. In relativity we use rho as energy density per volume ( scalar) though you can treat it as charge for flows. Anyways I'm not going to detail all of Minkowskii or Maxwell. I'm only interested atm at the stress energy momentum tensor compared to field strength tensor First lets establish dV, consider some infinitesemal volume of material of 3 dimensional space (for simplicity a rectangle) there are two types of forces that can affect DV -volume forces and surface forces. Both above are volume forces. [latex]dF_{grav}=\rho_mgdV[/latex] where [latex]\rho_m[/latex]is the volume mass density. (3d metric for the derivitave) [latex]dF_{electric}=\rho_eEdV[/latex] where [latex]\rho_e[/latex] is volume charge density . Surface forces act upon a particular surface. One example being pressure (loosely, gets tricky on adiabatic flows etc) not important atm...neither is pressure shear. the importance is in both cases we just described the Space described by the math....identically in both cases. Without using ether or block universe. [latex]dF_{grav}=\rho_mgdV[/latex] [latex]dF_{electric}=\rho_eEdV[/latex] Title of this thread. "Models for making sense of relativity - physical space vs physical spacetime" DONE EFE example with Maxwell comparision. When you apply the x coordinate tranforms the mass density changes as the volume of dV changes. Pretty straightforward and easy to understand. Each frame in Minkowskii is Euclidean so in each frame the last two formulas hold true. When you compare frames you transform the volume of DV. What could be easier to explain?

I think you don't fully understand block universe/expanded block universe. Neither of the above add anything to the SR metrics. Those two models don't add anything to any metric. QM, classical or otherwise. All processes that can be modelled as reversible fit under block. If you can't model it as reversible you have the evolving block. Neither model above adds any dynamic to GR/SR etc. Lorentz Ether however is a different matter. It adds a hidden background medium. One that is unnecessary as it has no measurable influence. So if you wish to use block or evolving block go right ahead. There is no questionable dynamic added to any time dilation formula. It doesn't try to add any dynamics to any formula. Its simply a philisophical classification of time with events. I don't have any objections on block/evolving block. Provided they are used correctly. (reversible/irreversible) Fundamentally all it does it ask the question. "Can all processes be accurately modelled as deterministic," Evolving block tries to keep events as deterministic as possible. Nothing more....

Excellent post above. Quantum geometrodynamics via Wheeler Dewitt primarily dealt with gravity. However under the quantum cosmology aspects the BB is described. Though didn't solve the singularity problem. LQC which is also a canonical gravity solution was able to do so. LQC however is signicantly different than geometrodynamics even though at first glance appear related. LQC attempts to fix problems in the latter. There is another class of geometrodynamics under topological geometrodynamics. classical and quantum dynamics. The last two detail the various gauge theories (electromagnetic,weak,strong etc). the latter uses spinors and twistors. Here is an intro to quantum geometrodynamics. You can see there is 3 time treatments. time before quantization, time after quantization and no time. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwikxPu1x7vPAhUMxmMKHTHyBk4QFgggMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imperial.ac.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimperial-college%2Fresearch-centres-and-groups%2Ftheoretical-physics%2Fmsc%2Fdissertations%2F2010%2FMichael-Patrick-Cooke-Dissertation.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEEYzfh3MtkBK2Lvmi6d9vbiJJLUA&sig2=wGBHmPoUZJ6uNIzLabnvbw It is a dissertation paper by Micheal Cooke. Here is an intro to LQC. http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4598 "Introduction to Loop Quantum Cosmology by Abhay Ashtekar An overview of topological geometrodynamics. (800+pages lol) http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0ahUKEwikxPu1x7vPAhUMxmMKHTHyBk4QFghGMAk&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftgdtheory.fi%2Fbookpdf%2Ftgdview.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHL0OuzUsW6VB7UE4PCGcBCmdMq8A&sig2=VJWG8KL7RZ4ji0_rK-NdtQ The dissertation I'm reading would fall under topological geometrodynamics but his paper is primarily the QM side. As I mentioned though I'm not an expert at geometrodynamics though I am familiar with it. (I study it off and on as time and interest allows):gotta hate RL. PS my wife hates my textbook collection. 100+ textbooks takes up too much room lol

roflmao +1

The determinant for a bound closed universe is the curvature. Which relates to mass density vs rate of expansion/contraction. Well prior to cosmological constant which confuses the issue.

good break down Studiot. On survey equipment 1) is done internally. Base calculations. 2) requires the maps for localized corrections. Though autocorrection software can help. Coupled with various level sensors etc. 3)is eliminated by methodology, control points and multiple measurement.

Whether or not the universe is homogenous and isotropic or not has no bearing on itself for a multiverse. Neither does finite vs infinite universe. A multiverse is possible under all the above.

Don't give up. Study hint: study in as relaxed environment as possible. Step back when you get stumped. Often things click when your not stressing the problem.

Ok the main reason I asked on GR is that using the EFE you can model any dynamic you want. That is the power of those equations. That is demonstrated in those articles. The equations used to model Ether for example. May contain a flow but the line element can be modified for static dynamics. (no flow). The other reason I asked on the EFE was to find how familiar you were with the hydrodynamic aspects of the stress tensor. the conditions where SR HOLDS true in regards to the weak equivalence principle I shouldn't need to go through several lengthy threads to get a clear answer on this.... A detail one needs to recognize is both Lorentz and Maxwell had the same limitation. They only knew about 3 to 4 particles at best. Field theory, the EFE came later including our current understanding of particles. Wave-particle duality wasn't really understood. So if Lorentz followed the idea that particles were like little matter bullets. Ie planets and suns, then he will try to model such. As you've read several articles specifically on Lorentz Ether. You probably came across his problems with electron contraction. His analysis never included the wavelength of the electron. His formulas (as presented then, didn't work for gravitational doppler.) At least according to several peer review articles on the subject. lets examine a logic problem with Ether. Lets use properties. Static field, fermionic (meaning were dealing with something that takes up space) aka Pauli exclusion principle. Ok first question. What does the Ether couple with ? Good luck on that question. As far as I can tell it doesn't couple to any other field. You discounted coupling to gravity by turning down models that state that Ether flows towards mass, like any other particle Assuming it doesn't couple with any other field or any matter fields then there no way to measure or identify it.... If it doesn't couple to any matter fields or force fields. It cannot contribute to mass in any way. After all mass comes from binding energy. So if it doesn't contribute to mass, it doesn't couple to any force fields or matter fields. People that typically defend Ether theories. Typically have the Bullet visualization of particles. Yet a particle in modern times is a field excitation... It has a wavelength and point-like properties of no discernable volume. Lorentz Ether tackled the electron as though it had a length to contract. This is another error that we recognize in modern physics. The nature of the electron wasn't known then. The length contraction though does help on wavelength. Thankfully... Ok assuming Lorentz Ether is a matter field (as of yet undetected) It is subject to medium dragging properties. Unless it doesn't couple to anything (hence useless). Why can't we detect this Ether? It doesn't matter what type of Ether were dealing with. It could be luminiferous Ether, covarient Ether (category Lorentz Ether falls under) or any other form of Ether. If it is a medium it must obey all medium property rules. Ie Drag (as far these models are concerned, have you ever studied the math itself. Not the accompanying explanations?) Have you identified why Block is different than evolving block? Have you connected the symmetry vs assymetry relations? Have you correlated why the terms Reversible and irreversible are important considerations? Ajb didn't have any difficulty understanding its importance. He even described a methodology to aid the block models maintain the deterministic aspects. (these techniques get incorperated into the evolving block. Edit: To answer your question on how much I understand GR. Enough to get me a master degree in philosophies of Cosmology and a minor degree in particle physics, which I am currently trying to get to Masters. My focus being Higgs inflation in the SO (10) minimal symmetric standard model. lol might explain my interest in thermodynamics (its fundamental in GR, Cosmology and even particle physics)Lets add a statement. In my opinion, "evolving Block" is a better model reality than "Block". The EFE is a better model of reality than Ether based theories. On the QM side, loop quantum cosmology is excellent and I consider a good competition to LCDM Not accurate, Einstein made sure the EFE was reducible to SR. The weak equivalence principle (particles in a box) is only a minute slice of spacetime where two particles will maintain parallel transport. Ie they fall perfectly straight down. However if you increase the initial seperation distance between the two test particles. When they fall to center of mass. They will fall in two identical diagional paths. Forming an inverted triangle. (This is where Principle of Covariance comes in). ( little hint if you can't model a static solution, your flowing solution isn't complete. Modelling the static first gives you your symmetry baseline. Then you add the flow.) In SR. [latex]g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}[/latex] first [latex]\eta[/latex] is your reference frame (cartesian)static. Your flow gets added under the h tensor. So under the River model [latex]\eta[/latex] frames flow according to h tensor. If the first order vector under h is zero. There is no flow of frames under eta. Direction of vectors determine your covariant and contravariant rotations. In the Lorentz guage you have 3 rotations and 3 boosts. That unfortunately would take too long to detail. Easily done for the field. After all SR is modelled under a field...(little pressed for time, but I'll keep it as simple as possible) Yes I would like to see your reference paper. Not that I disagree with the mathematical methodoly used in the reference. Nor your above descriptive. It will aid communication. It would also save time A related example of a field that was modelled and at one time ignored was The higgs field itself. The difference is the Higgs field is detectable. Via the ptedicted interactions we could estimate the mass of the Higgs. This isn't true in Lorentz Ether which under GR is considered undetectable. Hence of no measurable influence. Hence not needed. It doesn't do anything.... To put simply when your modelling velocity to correlate to time dilation. If it doesn't have any influence on the four momentum or velocity. Its useless in SR..or GR. pointless to add it to the transformation equations. As it has no influence under SR metrics. What is the point of using it to describe the car scenario above?

I would consider Lorentz ether as seriously flawed. All tests designed to find this Ether has failed. Wouldn't you consider that a flaw? Are you familiar with these tests and Ether drag which is inherent of any medium? Have you ever seen any research correlating the Lorentz Ether with thermodynamic properties? Every other particle in the SM model has this correlation. Why doesn't Ether? How precisely do you apply the conservation laws to this Ether which you consider "More Real". Yet you turned down the Ether flow model in the last link based on lack of conservation laws. So show me those conservation laws for Lorentz Ether... As Ajb mentioned earlier the Lorentz ether modelling requires extremely specialized properties and a total lack of any form of coupling to account for lack of thermodynamic influence. The River model is a form of Minkowskii block. However it isn't designed as a replacement for GR. Its merely designed as an instruction aid. Perhaps you missed that detail in the articles. The last link only appears on the surface to be the same but its not. (I would consider something that is undetectable by any means as seriously flawed. Ether) There is its called fields. Or if you want to stay strictly classical the distribution and pressure influence of the standard model of particles. Aka stress tensor.... All of which are detectable and include those conservation laws. I have to ask. I know your familiar with SR. How familiar are you with the Einstein field equations? I guess the next question is How do you define physical? Any property described by physics is physical. This includes temperature, pressure, wave functions, volume, length even time by definition. Physical property: is any property that is measurable, whose value describes a state of a physical system. The changes in the physical properties of a system can be used to describe its transformations or evolutions between its momentary states. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_property by definition reference frames are physical states. Perhaps if you clarify precisely what specific property you are looking for.? More specifically that cannot be modelled using fields?

The no time implies that time isn't a fundamental but an emergent property. In essence. The Wheeler Dewitt equations describe the fundamental geometries of infinitesimal tetrahedrons. a common terminology is spin foam. Remember the good ole "is space lumpy or smooth arguments lol. Anyways the Dewitt equation is treated as the fundamental. This equation does not include time. Time emerges when you add a matter field to the Dewitt fundamental field. Essentially it is a canonical quantum gravity solution. Where time emerges from the 3-metric as the configuration variable. It really boils down to is time fundamental or emergent. The field that carries this forward is quantum geometrodynamics. The Wheeler Dewitt equation is a major aspect of geometrodynamics. Personally There are aspects I do like in geometrodynamics but it does require a different philosophy on time. The aspect I like is dealing with quantum numbers and waveforms of QM. Geometrodynamics handles the QM side far better than relativity. However it becomes tricky to get it to work for every macro scale scenario. Added degrees of freedom. additional tensors etc. Not saying it isn't possible but it isn't easier. edit: hopefully I didn't mess up on the above. lol its not my strongest model on understanding. Which is extremely amusing considering I've been proof reading a 1000 plus page dissertation on the subject for a friend. Thankfully he is aware it's not my strongest subject lol. (may have asked me for that reason to test how understandable his dissertation is) Though I have familiarity with what he is trying to model under geometrodynamics. SO(10) Pati-Salam subgroups with Higgs field. I've been at that paper for several months now 👹.

ok lets start with. Yes light can distort spacetime. Even though photons has no rest mass it still has momentum energy. However it isn't light changing speed causing distortions to keep c constant. Concentrate enough light in a given volume the energy/mass density increases. Light ie photons has an energy density to pressure influence. Increased pressure means greater gravitational potential.

Lol I was curious as to the range of answers as well

True the specific model above doesn't survive under robust examination. But then again neither does block or Lorentz ether. The flow of time aspect has numerous models. One that tries to couple quantum gravity to GR being Wheeler-Dewitt. If you think the above is strange. Try the Wheeler-Dewitt modelling of "No Time" lol Or Rovelli's time without spacetime. Or 6d (4 spatial +2 time coordinates) (not saying these are bad models. They work for the conditions they are designed for) Well here is another space flow model view using Lorentz Ether lol General relativity on spatial flows... https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0006029&ved=0ahUKEwiGj7qe57XPAhVH5GMKHVh3B4gQFgg1MAU&usg=AFQjCNEKsnXLvkMO2NljVpAEIY199HcwWQ&sig2=k2eyHMvwIx6IUxCj6e5naw

not totally the metrics don't include the conservation laws. Also the scenarios where the River model accurate is limited. Lorentz Ether used strictly for Heuristic views also suffers limitations. I already mentioned limitations of the block universe. to save time. Here is a Lorentz ether paper used strictly as a heuristic view compares to the River model. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.4743&ved=0ahUKEwjtmNyTuLXPAhVOyGMKHdn1DtkQFggnMAI&usg=AFQjCNHbgpZfg5Kvz3KWatcL6eJQLzY1eg&sig2=1YQ5A_msGDQC4WllvUa0sA it describes the philosophy aspects and limitations of both models. The above doesn't look too bad. The last paper will definitely help provide an approach direction.

Fair enough an interest was presented on the QM side of the block universe. For that the example relates to deterministic and indeterminate aspects. Many felt that QM was incomplete as it is inherently indeterministic. Uncertianty principle being one example. Entanglement for another. There are more. So various theories categorized under "hidden variables" Pilot-wave theory being one the earlier examples. The hidden variable models would fit well under "block universe" as the requirement of a block universe is deterministic. However hidden variables were later shown to be wrong. Bells inequality. @Studiot there are better ways to make GR tangible within GR than using models that are at best "controversial". That was my point on the last two threads. There are classical "heuristic views" within GR. Adding classical thermodynamics makes understanding those heuristic views easier. A good example is one done by Andrew Liddle. I can post the metrics later if anyone is interested. For that matter one of his books on GR is entirely done using Newtonian style math. Took me a bit to find this. It is a model designed to aid understanding to GR for non scientists....These aren't the original papers. I haven't been able to locate the originals which aided my learning. Both are arxiv coverage... River model of black holes. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0411060&ved=0ahUKEwi4jZaqq7XPAhVH-mMKHdRdDKEQFggdMAE&usg=AFQjCNHgHAfUxCi2kWAcCIlc9KkDw6ZDjg&sig2=x3krb2NZqafTzuewQHeK5g River Model of space. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.0419&ved=0ahUKEwi4jZaqq7XPAhVH-mMKHdRdDKEQFggjMAI&usg=AFQjCNHwxW_PHrDm9ORJoQJwFegMyW6Jkw&sig2=hazWO599KMarLqFZbI0rCA If I recall the original was titled "River model of time" the paper kept the math far simpler than presented in the above two. This model seems reasonable. Yet it is limited. Can anyone identify whats missing?

Is our goal to teach modern relativity as per the OP. Or is it to search for that hidden elephant you mentioned? If our goal is to teach relativity. Stick to what relativity teaches. Not what the alternative proposals suggest. ( funny How you considered in light of the quoted OP. That posting the GR metrics itself was off topic)??????????

proton lifetime? its longer than the age of the universe lol.

Spacetime without an Eather is a concept that still clings around. Which is, well quite frankly somewhat annoying. Eather has been searched for in modern times let alone tests like the Michelson-Morley test. That test wasn't nearly as accurate as the modern day tests. If I recall the degree of accuracy on the modern tests is something along the lines of 10^-18. Yes historically Lorentz, etc hoped for an Eather but research has gone far beyond those days. Discussing Eather is good only for historical reference. No test has ever found any sign of Eather. Now our responsibility on a forum. Isn't to teach outside the box thinking. It is to teach what is in the textbooks. Even if you don't agree with it. It is irresponsible to use Eather which has never been found. As a training aid to SR or GR. Neither SR nor GR use either the Eather nor the block universe. Philosophically speaking it would be wrong to teach SR or GR using Eather or block universe. Those ideas are not part of main stream teachings. The former for lack of evidence. Posting historical thinking isn't evidence....( though its often used as an argument. Point blank. Science has far more modern data than what Lorentz and Minkowskii had. Quite frankly if relativity doesn't make sense to an OP. Teaching different models outside of SR and GR will only hinder their understanding. NOT AID IT. (just a side note. I own a 1920 physics textbook. This textbook doesn't cover Eather either. Though it is amusing that they also didn't know about neutrons. The atom was protons and electrons only.) I'm curious. Why did you only wish to discuss two models. Both of which are outside of mainstream teachings. Yet not wish to discuss the models that run counter to Eather and block universe? Searching for that elephant? I posted the modern day solutions. You promptly replied "its not on topic". Yet it is precisely on topic. "Making sense of relativity"......

True GR is typically considered a support of block universe. However only under certain conditions. ie reasonably static. Take for example freefall particles. Now add vorticity and flux along the freefall path. Can we say this dynamic is reversible?

As far as the quoted section that Ajb quoted. GR is also its own model. The Einstein field equations however is probably the best aporoach to modelling reality in terms of SR. As the EFE and GR include the SR metrics and much more. (thermodynamics)

There is a commonly used expression. "mass tells space how to curve, space tells matter how to move." Its not completely accurate in so far as flux and vorticity can also influence curvature. Mass is only one contributor. A more accurate statement. "the stress tensor tells space how to curve..." If you take a free falling particle the geometric relations of spacetime determine the path. It does so without applying any force. A freefalling particle will choose the path of least action. Action being the sum of kinetic energy vs potential energy. This is a non relativistic derivitave. [latex]Action=S=\int_{t_0}^{t_1}[\frac{1}{2}m (\frac{dx}{dt})^2+-mgx]dt [/latex]

Well I certainly never bothered too much with block universe conjectures. Either way the original block universe model didn't model reality too well. Is the evolving block universe model any better.? You tell me its incredibly difficult to find decent papers on the subject that has the math formulization. Words only go so far. I certainly have no adherence to the block universe. I already pointed out the problems of the block universe. Which you weren't aware of. Nor were you aware that the block universe was replaced by the evolving block universe. spacetime is also a generic term that includes the SM particles within its volume. How do you think the stress tensor causes the spacetime geometry to change without having a source of mass ie particles etc? It can't you cannot seperate the stress tensor from the metric tensor or the Einstein tensor. What affects one affects them all. Just like pressure affects temperature and density. They are properties that rely on each other. Spacetime geometry relies on the stress tensor. The stress tensor relies on the thermodynamics of the SM particles. You can model each seperately but they will affect each other.

Yes I read those posts before. You only included two physical interpretations. I'm not going to restrict my discussion to two problematic models simply so you can apply a physical aspect to a model that already details all the physical aspects. The physical aspects of GR is inherent in the thermodynamics of the standard model of particles. Nothing more. No ether. No block. No preferred frame. The math above is right on target from the GR view. You seem to want to restrict yourself to SR historical arguments. However SR (Lorentz,Minskowskii) has a strong reliance on simultaneous events and observers at rest. The Einstein field equations is where you should be looking to describe the physical hydrodynamic aspects of spacetime. mass is only one aspect of the stress tensor, you also have flux and vorticity. Your four momentum and 4 vectors are described by the stress tensor. It is the stress tensor that determines the spacetime geometry. With the proper applications. One can calculate how every particle species behaves or moves from the EFE. You can calculate nearly every physical characteristic you want. Temperature, pressure, entropy density, chemical potential, wavelength, mass, energy etc What other physical characteristics are you specifically seeking that isn't included in the above? I certainly don't require some mythical ether nor block universe to describe how spacetime affected the motion of freefalling particles.