DanMP

It does not. Not in QED, the best current theory. I didn't learn QED, but I found on Wikipedia: This is great. Exchange of photons is what I have in mind (although a bit differently). The fact that the electromagnetic field was successfully "discarded", opens the possibility for the GR geometric model for gravity to be also replaced with some kind of quantum theory, as KJW suggested:

I would ask. There is no need to, but I would like to know. And this is the beauty of physics: there still are questions to ask and things to investigate/discover. and/or new theories ... Since we know there is a dark matter, we should be opened to such possibilities.

I wrote: and I meant that, although it was on topic in the beginning: my idea (the one I underlined and bolded above) was contested ... and an interesting discussion about time and space developed. This discussion I suggested to be separated, because we no longer referred to the OP idea about a non-physical dimension or space where thoughts, inner images, the inner voice, dreams, and experiences reside.

Read the first post and you'll see. This is not my thread, so don't ask me for clarifications.

Who would? You? Autonomous robots to work for us is not a bad idea, especially when AI will be 1, able to control/maintain fusion (I recently read something about that), in order to have plenty and cheap energy, and 2, able to safely control such a robot.

I was sure that you will say that 😀 and I may offer other examples, like swimming in the ocean or spacewalking, but you can say that the ocean is an object and the spacesuit is also required. So, yes, we need objects. We are, also, objects 😀 Still, the fact that we need objects in order to see/experience space, doesn't change the fact that we see/observe changes/events not the time dimension, nor the fact that time dimension is different, as I explained before (you can't stop or go back in time). It's not a problem, because we can (and did) make clocks, devices that count repetitive events, so we have more than our subjective perception. I think that this discussion about the perception of time and space should be separated from the thread, because it is no longer on topic.

OK, thank you for all your answers and for your patience. Thank you! I prefer the second one.

Yes, I understood your point, and it's a good one ... in understanding time. Not in seeing it. Swansont agreed that time is something we cannot see, touch, feel in any way: My point was/is that we observe/see change (in fact the succession of changes/events), and from that we understand that it must be something somehow similar with a spatial dimension, something that we call time. But, as I said, time is not quite similar with space dimensions, because you can't go back in time or stop in it (stop your advance in time, ageing). Not absolutely. A blind man can sense space just by walking in all directions. He can even measure distances, by counting his steps.

You are talking about the theoretical/abstract model. I am asking about how the mass actually does that.

I fixed it: The question was, see above, how the mass can change "the curvature of spacetime" in my proximity? Can you answer this question please?

Maybe, but your answer is not. The strike line was unintentional. I try to correct it.

Because Earth or other body you mention are far away and your ship cannot be affected directly by them without "an action at a distance." What it can be affected by directly is the geometry of spacetime Who said that my ship has to be directly affected by the incoming mass? I wrote: The question was, see above, how the mass can change "the curvature of spacetime" in my proximity?

In the case of the Earth approaching my spaceship location, yes, you can do that. But remember that you wrote: so we can replace the Earth in the scenario with a huge spaceship, arriving near my location (much closer than the Earth would do) by using its thrusters (not in "free fall"). Again: You would stil "blame" the affected geometry or some other geometry? Why? And I repeat the question:

I can sense the space my moving freely through it. In fact objects are not always good because they can block me (I can't really sense the space from a coffin 🙂). On the other hand, in order to see its expanse, yes, objects, like stars, are very useful. Also meter sticks are good/needed to measure lengths. Yes, the change of doors, from open to close, can stop/block me from moving through space, but there is no real temporal obstacle, I cannot stop/block your advance in time using objects (or any thing that I can imagine). This is another major difference for time (compared to space dimensions), besides the impossibility to go back. This is very similar to what I wrote in my first post here. What you can see/observe is change, but this allows you to define a time dimension. More about my opinion regarding time is here.

Yes, but there is always a mass (or energy) required ... The geometry doesn't change without a change in mass/energy. So I would "blame" the approaching mass, not the geometry that is affected by it.

You can see me changing from walking to jumping. You can't see the "expanse" of time as you can see the expanse of space. It seems to me we move exactly like that Ok, so move back in time as you move back in space

And what is wrong with 3? The changes mentioned in 1 and 2 only occur when the Earth is approaching ... Why are you discounting the Earth as a cause?

We can directly observe space dimensions by moving (walking, jumping) in all directions (as long as there is no obstacle to prevent it), but in time we cannot move like that, and the only thing (regarding time) we can directly observe, is change. We see the sunrises/sunsets and we consider that a day passed between two of them, we count the oscillations of a pendulum and calculate how many hours, minutes and seconds passed, and so on. But the observables are the events we count (and the changes in and around us), not time itself. Back on topic: I wrote that the mind is the result/product of brain activity, and that the observable is the brain, not the mind. Now I want/need to add that the mind is in fact observable, but only from inside

When I wrote "local" I meant "in the proximity". Let's consider a simple example: I am on a spaceship hovering somewhere on the Earth's orbit around the Sun, not exactly on collision course , but 1 million km closer to the Sun (at 148.6 million km from the Sun, when the Earth is at 149.6). Most of the time/year, in order to stay at that fixed point, I have to use the propulsion to compensate the Sun's "gravitational pull". Once a year, when the Earth is near, I have to orient the ship thrusters towards the Earth, not the Sun, in order to maintain my fixed position in Sun's reference frame. The question is: why I have yo do it? because of gravitational time dilation changes? because of spacetime curvature changes? or because the presence of Earth (more exactly its mass) is changing "the curvature of spacetime" in my proximity? Another question is how exactly the Earth does that?

Ok, it sounds interesting, for a fantasy movie or book, but this is a science forum, so some evidence are needed. There are any?

Maybe, but the curvature depends on the local mass and/or energy ... You remove the mass/energy and the gravity is gone.

Length is as observable/measurable as time intervals. But time as a dimension is not as real/observable as the space. Time is a (very) useful concept but is just a concept, like the mind. The real/observable "source" of the mind is the brain and for the time the change.

Time as duration/interval is observable/measurable, yes, although a clock is just counting events, but time as a dimension is not really observable. As I wrote, what we observe is change.

So the curvature has no cause?

Time dilation is the "dominating effect" or the dominating [apparent] cause? I wrote apparent because, in my opinion, the actual cause of gravity is the one that creates "the curvature" ...