Would it be incorrect to say that spacetime behaves relationally

We can perform a Lorenz transformation which means it is rational.

We can spin relative to space itself without any other need for a reference frame which means it exists absolutely.

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_6419365_orig.jpg (25KB, 486x292px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 486x292px

>>8172984
>We can spin relative to space itself without any other need for a reference frame which means it exists absolutely.

I've come to understand that this is still out there.

"In physics, the concept of absolute rotation--is a topic of debate..." -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation

"Alternatively, these experiments provide an operational definition of what is meant by "absolute rotation", and do not pretend to address the question of "rotation relative to what?"." -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_spheres

>>8173211

General relativity gives strong evidence that space must exist absolutely. Gravitational waves demonstrate that space can behave like a medium. There's also the idea of curving space. If space can curve then it must exist absolutely in order to have shape.

>>8173764
Well I don't know anything about that.

Just saying spinning "relative to absolute space" isn't something you can just state as fact.

>>8173921

Well we know from gravity probe B that space can spin (Twist rather) relative to a stationary observer. There is as far as I know overwhelming evidence to support the claim that space exists absolutely. It simply has so many definite physical properties that you simply can't call it nothing.

>>8173921
>I don't understand you
>say I'm right
Are you legitimately dumb?

The strange thing about spacetime is that we can formulate its behavior meaning that it is rational but everything observed in spacetime must correspond to a constant speed of light which is counter intuitive. Rational but counter-intuitive.

Fucking shit popping out of thin air at least try to make past people understand or aliby

>>8173211
It's also a pretty shitty example to give, because general relativity already includes something that is absolute - acceleration.

While velocity is relative, acceleration is not - accelerating reference frames are distinct and not interchangeable with inertial frames.

The spinning bucket argument is actually a good example of this phenomenon; a non-inertial choice of reference frame will require illusory forces to account for observed behavior, such as the centrifugal force on the water.

>>8172917
The universe contains itself.