my question is as we can see the sun with naked eye, it is older than 8 mintues (calculated as per light travels in one year). which means if we see the current space or maybe a galaxy or stars they are older to recent time so how can we see the recent activity of stars and galaxy? Are we looking old stuff of space ? Can we ever look at the newer stuff of space ?

We all know that 2x/4x = 4x/8x does not tell us what x is because is cancelled out being referenced on both sides.

Describing  an egg as egg shaped does not tell us what the shape of an egg is.

So why do models gravity using a picture of a “gravity hole  in a mesh of time” as if the weight of a ball is distorting a frame of time. This, surly, is a circular reference effectively saying gravity looks like gravity. Additionally this model has some rather poor comparison’s. And if the mesh is three dimensional then what are the axis of this mesh?  Does this imply time have 3 dimension’s?  Showing a picture of a moving ball rotating around a gravity ball includes a reference to time to describe time itself. Giving two layers of self-reference.

Can anyone explain to the lay public what gravity is without using self-reference. ?

Me and my twin develop a rocket that can fly through space near the speed of light... He gets in and takes off and his rocket approaches C. From my perspective time slows down for him, he ages slower than me on earth, and when he returns more time has passed for me.  But from his perspective earth has taken off at near C away from him, so shouldn't he see time slow for me.  And from his perspective, when earth returns shouldn't he have aged more rapidly than me? If its all relative, what is the mechanism that decides who ages, when both brothers see the exact same scenario from different points of view?

If you attach a straight pole to an axle so that it revolves at a right angle to the axle (like spokes on a bicycle wheel) and spin it, the outside of the pole will move faster than the inside. The longer the pole, the faster the movement around the circumference.

If I built a pole that was long enough, it would get to a point where the end -if spun - should reach the speed of light, or even exceed the speed of light. However, I know that nothing can travel as fast as the speed of light. What would happen to the pole?

Hypotheticaly, If time travel existed and we could go forwards and backwards in time; and you created a paradox in which your existence never was (the grandfather/mad scientist theory) and there WAS an afterlife how humans percieve it currently; (soul leaving the body and entering a spirit world/universe) could the soul enter or would the soul seise to exist too? For instance, the spirit world would have to have no concept of time and space as A) everyone would age and B) it would run out of space eventually as noone would be leaving it. Technically you and your soul would of existed once, and as the soul can survive without your physical presence, couldn't it survive without a physical existence, especially as it can pass through worlds?

I know that answers will be based on alot of 'perhaps' and 'maybes' but i'm very interested in what others think on this.

I have had this crazy idea about the nature of matter in my head for the last 10 years and I would like someone to help me understand why it’s crazy.

Is it possible that matter could be the fabric of space curved in such a way that it forms a semi-stable structure? The types of elementary particles possible could be limited by the possible stable arrangements of groups of these space-time ‘knots’ (the quarks within a proton for example). If gravity manifests as space time curvature why not take the next logical step and ask could matter be a different kind of space-time curvature/structure?

It would have the implication that matter is not freely able to move through space but is attached (and is part of) that space and would therefore be more resistant to movement the faster you try to move it. Is the impossibility of light speed travel an expression of the elasticity of the fabric of space?

Could the reason that energy moves in discrete units be that this is one of the only stable arrangement of the fabric of space that will allow the energy to leave the particle?

I understand that I have used space-time and the fabric of space interchangeably. I am referring to the underlying fabric of space.

Please unpick my craziness.

G is an old constant. Since Einstein the world became aware that time and space are (more) warped close to a blackhole mass.

Has there been a modified G to compensate for this warping or is G still assumed constant? This due to an article stating that a satelite moving 1 meter further away in an Earth orbit would experience a time flaw at the 15th(?) or so digit.

I could imagine the same with the Moon being 3,474km in diameter. That's quite some time difference between the face and the back of our Moon.

Could matter be spacetime twisted/pinched in a way that forms stable knot-like structures?