Is time something that flows — or just an illusion? Exploring space-time as either a fixed “block universe” or a dynamic fabric reveals deeper mysteries about existence, change, and the very nature of reality.
Few ideas in modern science have changed how we understand reality as deeply as space-time, the intertwined union of space and time at the core of Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Space-time is often described as the “fabric of reality.” In some explanations, this fabric takes the form of a fixed, four dimensional “block universe,” a complete map of all events in the past, present, and future.
In other explanations, it is a dynamic field that bends and curves in response to gravity. This leads to a deeper question: what does it mean to say that space-time exists? What kind of thing is it: structure, substance, or metaphor?
The heart of modern physics
These questions are not purely philosophical. They lie at the foundation of how we interpret physics today and influence ideas ranging from our understanding of relativity to speculations about time travel, multiverses, and the origin of the cosmos.
They also shape theories about how space-time itself emerges, including proposals that treat it as a kind of memory for the universe. Yet the very language used to describe space-time is often vague, metaphorical, and inconsistent.
The Austrian-British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once remarked that philosophical problems arise when “language goes on holiday.” Physics, in many respects, illustrates this point.
Over the last hundred years, common words like “time,” “exist,” and “timeless” have been given specialized technical meanings without fully addressing the assumptions carried over from everyday use.
This has led to widespread confusion about what these terms actually mean.
The problem with language
In the philosophy of physics, particularly in a view known as eternalism, the word “timeless” is used literally. Eternalism is the idea that time doesn’t flow or pass — that all events across all time are equally real within a four-dimensional structure known as the “block universe.”
According to this view, the entire history of the universe is already laid out, timelessly, in the structure of space-time. In this context, “timeless” means that the universe itself does not endure or unfold in any real sense. There is no becoming. There is no change. There is only a block, and all of eternity exists atemporally within it.
But this leads to a deeper problem. If everything that ever happens throughout eternity is equally real, and all events are already there, what does it actually mean to say that space-time exists?
An elephant in the room
There’s a structural difference between existence and occurrence. One is a mode of being, the other, of happening.
Imagine there’s an elephant standing beside you. You’d likely say: “This elephant exists.” You might describe it as a three-dimensional object, but importantly, it is a “three-dimensional object that exists.”
In contrast, imagine a purely three-dimensional elephant that flashes into the room for an instant: a cross-sectional moment in the life of an existing elephant, appearing and disappearing like a ghost. That elephant doesn’t really exist in the ordinary sense. It happens. It occurs.
An existing elephant endures over time, and space-time catalogues every moment of its existence as a four-dimensional world line — an object’s path through space and time throughout its existence. The imaginary “occurring elephant” is just one spacelike slice of that tube; one three-dimensional moment.
Now apply this distinction to space-time itself. What does it mean for four-dimensional space-time to exist in the sense that the elephant exists? Does space-time endure in the same sense? Does space-time have its own set of “now” moments? Or is space-time — the manifold of all the events that happen throughout eternity — merely something that occurs? Is space-time simply a descriptive framework for relating those events?
Eternalism muddies this distinction. It treats all of eternity — that is, all of space-time — as an existing structure, and takes the passage of time to be an illusion. But that illusion is impossible if all of space-time occurs in a flash.
To recover the illusion that time passes within this framework, four-dimensional space-time must exist in a manner more like the three-dimensional existing elephant — whose existence is described by four-dimensional space-time.
Every event
Let’s take this thought one step further.
If we imagine that every event throughout the universe’s history does “exist” within the block universe, then we might ask: when does the block itself exist? If it doesn’t unfold or change, does it exist timelessly? If so, then we’re layering another dimension of time onto something that was supposed to be timeless in the literal sense.
To make sense of this, we could construct a five-dimensional framework, using three spatial dimensions and two time dimensions. The second time axis would let us say that four-dimensional space-time exists in exactly the same way we commonly think of an elephant in the room as existing within the three dimensions of space that surround us, the events of which we catalogue as four-dimensional space-time.
At this point, we’re stepping outside established physics that describes space-time through four dimensions only. But it reveals a deep problem: we have no coherent way to talk about what it means for space-time to exist without accidentally smuggling time back in through an added dimension that isn’t part of the physics.
It’s like trying to describe a song that exists all at once, without being performed, heard, or unfolding.
From physics to fiction
This confusion shapes how we imagine time in fiction and pop science.
In the 1984 James Cameron film, The Terminator, all events are treated as fixed. Time travel is possible, but the timeline cannot be changed. Everything already exists in a fixed, timeless state.
In the fourth film in the Avengers franchise, Avengers: Endgame (2019), time travel allows characters to alter past events and reshape the timeline, suggesting a block universe that both exists and changes.
That change can only occur if the four-dimensional timeline exists in the same way our three-dimensional world exists.
But regardless of whether such change is possible, both scenarios assume that the past and future are there and ready to be traveled to. However, neither grapples with what kind of existence that implies, or how space-time differs from a map of events.
Understanding reality
When physicists say that space-time “exists,” they are often working within a framework that has quietly blurred the line between existence and occurrence. The result is a metaphysical model that, at best, lacks clarity, and, at worst obscures the very nature of reality.
None of this endangers the mathematical theory of relativity or the empirical science that confirms it. Einstein’s equations still work. But how we interpret those equations matters, especially when it shapes how we talk about reality and how we approach the deeper problems in physics.
These understandings include attempts to reconcile general relativity with quantum theory — a challenge explored both in philosophy and popular science discussions.
Defining space-time is more than a technical debate — it’s about what kind of world we think we’re living in.
Adapted from an article originally published in The Conversation.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
26 Comments
A simpler explanation offered by LeChat
Q: Time is a dynamic field that bends and curves in response to gravity?
A: Yes, the statement is rooted in **Einstein’s theory of general relativity**, which describes gravity not as a force (as in Newtonian physics), but as the curvature of **spacetime** caused by mass and energy. Here’s a concise breakdown:
—
### **1. Spacetime: The Fabric of the Universe**
– **Spacetime** is a four-dimensional continuum (three dimensions of space + one of time) that forms the “fabric” of the universe.
– Massive objects like stars, planets, and black holes **warp** this fabric, creating what we perceive as gravity.
—
### **2. Time Dilation: Gravity Slows Time**
– **Time dilation** is a key prediction of general relativity: Time runs slower in stronger gravitational fields.
– **Example:** A clock on Earth (stronger gravity) ticks slightly slower than one on a satellite in orbit (weaker gravity). This effect is confirmed by GPS satellites, which must account for it to remain accurate[:refs](1).
—
### **3. Gravitational Time Dilation in Action**
– **GPS Systems:** Without correcting for time dilation, GPS would accumulate errors of kilometers per day.
– **Black Holes:** Near a black hole, time slows dramatically compared to a distant observer. This is depicted in movies like *Interstellar*[:refs](2).
—
### **4. Experimental Proof**
– **Pound-Rebka Experiment (1959):** Confirmed that light climbing out of a gravitational field loses energy (gravitational redshift), directly supporting the idea that time is affected by gravity.
– **Gravitational Wave Detection (LIGO, 2015):** Observed ripples in spacetime caused by merging black holes, further validating general relativity[:refs](3).
—
### **5. Why This Matters**
– **Fundamental Physics:** General relativity reshaped our understanding of the universe, linking gravity, time, and space.
– **Everyday Tech:** GPS, space travel, and even precise timekeeping rely on these principles.
Do WE really exist?
The article raises a real and fascinating question, but it blurs physics with philosophy. Relativity shows space-time is a powerful model that predicts reality well, but whether past and future exist like the present is an interpretation, not a settled fact. It’s worth exploring, but readers should know physics hasn’t proven the block universe — it’s one possible lens, not the final word.
Yep, that’s a very good point. And actually I personally think it’s wrong. I think our interpretations and the implications of relativity that are usually inferred are wrong. I’ve laid out my reasoning in a lot more detail at my website. In case you’re interested in checking it out, here’s the URL: https://cosmicave.org/
Get off the subject of time because it is not an object or anything that exists! Time is solely made up because we orbit the song and order on our axis . so we started measuring this occurrence . then we called it time because we are waiting for two events . Night and day.
If you notice there’s no variable for time and Einstein’s theory of relativity ! It’s not a variable therefore the greatest equation perhaps ever, never mentiones time .
Only energy, the result, mass and the speed of light constant . so, einstein acknowledges the time is a man-made because if we were on mars or any other planet , our “measurements” would be totally different than here on Earth due to the differences in orbit day/night occurrence and orbital occurrence around the Sun .
So no there is no space time just space, distance, light and mass and associated forces.
There’s actually a better chance of seeing the sixth dimension by doubling/halving the axes x, y, z, and perhaps seeing any Dimension that is a multiple of 3 than there is seeing the fourth fifth or other dimensions indivisible by three .
I saw somebody construct a mirror object attempting to show the fourth dimension but in reality they are showing the sixth dimension .
The terms are getting muddied all over the place there’s no two dimensions of time unless we just make up a term calling it a dimension which is the wrong terminology !
***CORRECTED POST (SPELLING AND WORDS MIS-INTERPERATED BY TALK TEXT)
Get off the subject of time because it is not an object or anything that exists! Time is solely made up because we orbit the Sun and rotate on our axis . so we started measuring this occurrence . then we called it time because we are waiting for two events . Night and day.
If you notice there’s no variable for time in Einstein’s theory of relativity! It’s not a variable therefore the greatest equation perhaps ever, never mentiones time .
Only energy, the result, mass and the speed of light constant . so, einstein acknowledges that time is a man-made thing because if we were on mars or any other planet , our “measurements” would be totally different than here on Earth due to the differences in orbit day/night occurrence and orbital occurrence around the Sun .
So no there is no space time just space, distance, light, mass and associated forces.
There’s actually a better chance of seeing the sixth dimension by doubling/halving the axes x, y, z, and perhaps seeing any Dimension that is a multiple of 3 than there is seeing the fourth fifth or other dimensions indivisible by three .
I saw somebody construct a mirror object attempting to show the fourth dimension but in reality they are showing the sixth dimension .
The terms are getting muddied all over the place there’s no two dimensions of time unless we just make up a term calling it a dimension which is the wrong terminology !
We need to standardize the terminology and not change it so that historically we can go back and read something and understand what all the terms mean ..
If anyone’s interested I’ll explain the fourth dimension and why we can’t see it no matter what attempts you make with tesseracts or any other type of thing like that.
I will check it out!
see my *** CORRECTED *** Comment I made 9/25/25.
This article is philosophical fluff and doesn’t belong on this site. There’s very little science here. Science needs to make predictions – none of that is in the article – what new things we could find if we live in a block universe, versus if we don’t?
Even the philosophy is sloppy. The article draws a distinction between being and becoming. But becoming in the limit is a series of being – for example the ghost elephant does exist for a short period of time. Of course, the authors don’t define things well enough so that we can pin them down.
Space-Time is an abstract framework for referencing relative motion. Time is not a fundamental. It’s merely how we reference (calibrate and aggregate) change (e.g. motion)…and change is reference-frame (e.g. quantum) specific.
Dear me, that is quite the take. Of course, I completely disagree with you—both in your general comment about what should count as science and, more specifically, on your distinction between being and becoming —which _I_ think is sloppy.
Where’s the scientific evidence that any event, or any set of events like the ghost elephant, _exists_? Events happen. They don’t “exist when they happen”. That’s a sloppy misuse of language. And it’s not just semantics, either. To exist means something categorically different from happening. Things, places, concepts, etc — all exist in our world. Events happen. “Becoming in the limit is a series of being” is nonsense. You’re confusing ontological categories that ought to be kept distinct — just as philosophers have been doing for more than a century (or going all the way back to Parmenides).
On your general criticism, though, I find it baffling that anyone can imagine the basic concepts we have about things that exist, and that we explore scientifically, are not relevant to science.
You say: Events happen. They don’t “exist when they happen”
I used the word “limit” in the Calculus sense of the word. If you broke down time into several infinitesimal pieces, then there must be two such pieces – one where the thing didn’t exist and another where the thing did exist. This is what becoming looks like.
You seem to disagree with the above – if so, you need to show how becoming can happen without the thing ever existing at any point in time.
You say: On your general criticism, though, I find it baffling that anyone can imagine the basic concepts we have about things that exist, and that we explore scientifically, are not relevant to science.
All topics can be looked at scientifically – including the above. My comment wasn’t about the topic, but about the method. The method of science includes a hypothesis, and a means to test such a hypothesis. As elaborated in my previous comment, the first one seems to be missing in the article (correct me if I am wrong), the second one therefore is missing as well.
Thanks for your reply! I think you’ve put your finger on the key issue in a way that gives me an opportunity to clarify my stance much better.
In philosophy of time, becoming is usually defined as the coming into existence of events. I think this is already an ontological misstep, conflating occurrence with existence, which should be ontologically distinct categories. I see this as the core fallacy that gives rise to all the familiar paradoxes in philosophy of time debates.
As I said, events don’t ever exist in the same sense that things, places, structures, concepts, etc, “exist”. Events happen _in the course of existence_. They only “exist” in the sense of being part of structural descriptive frameworks — like space-time. They are not ever existent things in the sense of “being part of physical reality”.
Events HAPPEN, at the location and the instant where they OCCUR. Whether past, present, or future, they ALWAYS “exist” only in the abstract, as part of the full catalogue of all events that ever occur throughout the universe/eternity. In that sense, they may “be”, and they may “change” from “being” future events to past ones, etc.
But the very concept of becoming, as the “coming into existence of events,” is, _I_ think, itself fundamentally false, right out the gate. In my thinking, this IS the fallacy on which McTaggart’s paradox about incompatible A-properties, etc, rests.
So, I actually refuse to grant the initial ontological premise that events _ever_ “come into being” — at least, not in the sense that they ever exist as part of _reality_ (in a non-abstract, ontological sense). Events _happen_ when and where they occur, and they do so _as the universe of things, places, etc, exists_.
In this sense: becoming ≠ being-at-a-time. Becoming = happening. And happening is not a mode of existence but something categorically distinct from it. Being and becoming are thus two distinct, but equally important aspects of reality; two distinct categories that must not be collapsed.
I’ve actually written a follow-up to the above article that I haven’t yet posted on my blog, which I think adds a lot of clarity about what I’m saying here. I’m still ruminating on the draft and will post it after I tighten up and clarify some of the phrasing. However, if you’re interested you can check out the current draft here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RKvvO3zqLrQ96VomcBk_plEIxPJmC4rrx4M3XraTKWg/edit?usp=sharing
Now, to your second point about science as experimental hypothesis testing, science is actually MUCH more than that. Science is not simply coming up with an idea, working out what that means we should see if we go looking, and confirming predictions. What about the fact that there are often multiple competing explanations for the same phenomenon?
In this case, I actually _have_ posted an essay on my blog about what science is when not reduced to a trivial notion of empirical hypothesis testing, which I’d invite you to read here: https://cosmicave.org/2025/07/24/scientific-shadow-reading-how-we-discovered-earth-is-a-planet/
Your post deals with many different issues. All of them are interesting, but I will deal with only 3 at this time. The third topic is the most interesting one to me.
Topic 1:
You say: science as experimental hypothesis testing, science is actually MUCH more than that.
I grant that science is more than hypothesis testing. But I hope you agree that hypothesis testing is a crucial part of science – science is much more, but it is at least that. Hypothesis testing is what makes science useful. Now, what I hear in your comment is that in the initial phases of a scientific discussion, the hypothesis testing may be absent. True, but the point of the discussion should be to go there. I didn’t see it in the posted news article.
Topic 1A:
You say: What about the fact that there are often multiple competing explanations for the same phenomenon?
This is a very important observation. This is precisely why experimentation is necessary. The multiple competing explanations cannot all be true (I assume that they are contradictory at the points in which they differ) – so experimentation is needed to eliminate the wrong explanations.
Topic 2:
Becoming
Yes – as I was writing my previous comment, I was thinking that you might object to this one. In my defense, though, this is something that is mentioned in the posted article, which is why I brought it up. Now, to be fair, your ideas (Topic 3 below) also get a mention in the article.
Topic 3:
What is “events”
I am interested in your definition of events. Let’s take an example (you can choose your own): let us say that there is an egg, we break the egg, and then we make an omelet. Are breaking of the egg and making of the omelet events? If so, how will you define such events?
You mentioned McTaggart’s paradox – I wasn’t familiar with that, so had to read up. I am not sure that this supposed paradox prevents us from defining an event. Or does it? Regardless of whether time is real or not, it is true in our reality that omelets get made, and we ought to be able to describe its making. You could use A-series or B-series to describe the omelet making process.
I realize that the making of an omelet is a simple thing and may not illustrate any big issues. But, I think, defining our terms with examples is necessary to tighten up our definitions of terms.
There are two ideas that are related to what you said about events. I mention these because they might be relevant. Idea 1 is that it is speculated that time is a physical dimension in certain cases – this happens in the movie Interstellar – there time is a physical dimension inside a black hole. Idea 2 is the Arrow of Time (see Wikipedia article).
The software of this website is such that you cannot Reply to this message. But you can Reply to my message dated Sep 17, 2025 – and it will appear in the proper order.
Thanks again for your thoughtful response — I really appreciate it. I’m going to focus just on your comments in 1 and 1A here, and will follow up on 2–3 separately.
From your first comment, it seemed you questioned whether the SciTechDaily editors should have republished my article because you didn’t see it as “science.” _What counts as science_ is a big question to tackle in a comment thread, but I will say that a view of science as nothing more than empirical hypothesis confirmation is very narrow — and, more than that, viewing empirical confirmation this way comes dangerously close to misunderstanding how science actually works.
On the first point, I’ll simply quote Einstein:
“The theory of relativity is a fine example of the fundamental character of the modern development of theoretical science. The initial hypotheses become steadily more abstract and remote from experience. On the other hand, it gets nearer to the grand aim of all science, which is to cover the greatest possible number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest possible number of hypotheses or axioms. Meanwhile, the train of thought leading from the axioms to the empirical facts or verifiable consequences gets steadily longer and more subtle. The theoretical scientist is compelled in an increasing degree to be guided by purely mathematical, formal considerations in search for a theory, because the physical experience of the experimenter cannot lead him up to the regions of highest abstraction. The predominantly inductive methods appropriate to the youth of science are giving place to tentative deduction. Such a theoretical structure needs to be very thoroughly elaborated before it can lead to conclusions which can be compared with experience. Here, too, the observed fact is undoubtedly the supreme arbiter; but it cannot pronounce sentence until the wide chasm separating the axioms from their verifiable consequences has been bridged by much intense, hard thinking. The theorist has to set about this Herculean task fully aware that his efforts may only be destined to prepare the death blow to his theory. The theorist who undertakes such a labor should not be carped at as “fanciful”; on the contrary, he should be granted the right to give free rein to his fancy, for there is no other way to the goal. His is no idle daydreaming, but a search for the logically simplest possibilities and their consequences.”
On the second point: even when empirical confirmation is possible, it must be handled carefully. Treating confirmation as proof of a hypothesis blurs the line between good science and confirmation bias, and risks mistaking correlation for causation. When an outcome predicted by a hypothesis is observed, science should never be taken to have “proven” the hypothesis correct — logically, it means the hypothesis has _failed to be falsified_. Science does not prove hypotheses; it continually tests them, and we must always guard against the tendency to over-interpret confirmatory results and cement our theoretical biases prematurely.
None of this means we should just speculate idly or that confidence in theories is unwarranted — repeated, independent confirmations across a broad range of predictions, as in the case of general relativity, rightly increase our trust. What I’m saying is simply that “what counts as science,” and what belongs on a science-and-technology site, shouldn’t be reduced to empirical hypothesis testing alone. That would be a narrow view of science and, ironically, could reinforce a common misunderstanding of science as a process that _proves_ theories rather than one that continually subjects them to testing and potential falsification.
OK, now for topics 2 and 3. Here’s where, as I said, I think you are putting your finger on the key issue I’ve brought up in the article, i.e. the distinction between existence and occurrence (or, in a way, between being and becoming). With regard to topic 2, my main criticism of the way the distinction between being and becoming is handled in philosophy in general is that becoming tends to be defined in terms of being — as the coming into existence of events. In contrast, like I said I think that very concept subtly and falsely conflates existents and occurrences, which I think should be treated as ontologically distinct things.
And that brings us to topic 3: how I’d define an event, an instant, and space-time, and how those are related to “being” or “existence”. Your egg cracking/omelet example is a good one. The egg exists while it’s an egg, and then it exists as a cracked shell and liquid mess, and then once it’s fried up with cheese and whatnot it exists as an omelet (and so on, as you eat and digest it, etc). Each of those changes is an event — a thing that happens in the course of the egg’s existence, changing the form in which it exists.
But each instant along the egg’s worldline isn’t also something that “exists” in the sense that it’s part of reality. What’s real is the egg and the form it’s in at whatever instant. The instants themselves aren’t existing also; they’re what’s happening while the existing thing exists.
I’m actually going to ask again that you read the Google Doc I linked above, because it does a MUCH better job of clarifying this, with concrete, real world examples like the egg/omelet, than what I’ve done in this brief comment. It’s a <10 minute read, barely longer than this article we're commenting on. In this one, instead of just asking the question and analysing it to seed doubt about something people commonly believe to be true, but where there's a lot of incoherence, in this follow-up article what I've done is actually take a step back and essentially provide exactly what you're asking for in this comment: provide a clear definition of "event", use concrete real world examples to draw the distinction between existence and occurrence, and explain why I'm convinced space-time is not reality, that it literally does not exist, but rather that space-time and becoming are useful models for aggregating phenomena and describing the spatiotemporal relationships between them.
Einstein’s equations still work. But how we interpret those equations matters, especially when it shapes how we talk about reality and how we approach the deeper problems in physics.
VERY GOOD.
Using statistical errors (governed by the uncertainty principle) to negate natural laws is bound to plunge modern physics into an inescapable pseudoscientific abyss.
If the physicists are truly interested in physics, please visit https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/1949093422465015827, https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/1948272528817619484 and https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/1938229158724498993 (If the link is available).
Fascinating article – I’d like to add that there is a growing line of work suggesting that time might actually be fundamental, not emergent.
One such approach is the Teorija Temeljnega Časa (TTČ – Fundamental Time Theory), which treats time as a primary global parameter and explains cosmic expansion as a consequence of a negative-pressure “time vacuum” rather than a mysterious dark energy.
TTČ fully reproduces ΛCDM background fits (H(z), BAO, SN Ia) and keeps general relativity’s predictions for lensing and solar-system tests, but reinterprets them in terms of local curvature of time. Interestingly, TTČ also provides measurable predictions: phase shifts in matter-wave interferometers and tiny frequency drifts in optical clock comparisons.
In other words, TTČ keeps spacetime real but gives time a privileged, fundamental role – offering a possible way to reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics without making time “disappear.”
(If anyone is interested, I can share more details, equations, and fit results.)
We have limited senses and limited imaginations, especially if we have normal lives. Plus, someone gives prizes for math abstracts. Most people are merely working out their notions and talk incessantly.
It’s rough, kids.
We are seated in our own illusions.
I had a bunny that heard more and thought more about the immediate environment than humans. She was surprised that I appeared to save her from approaching predators and realized I was watching from the red-lighted security cams. She’d go to the blind spots to avoid my surveillance.
She knew what predators were entering two yards over and, by their stealth, what kind of animal and what it’s discretions were.
Worse of all: Trying to find her location, I’d zoom one camera hoping to see her ears behind the hutch, where she’d jut up looking right at me in that camera, scolding for the intrusion.
This happened several times and I figured it must like when the house goes silent and you suddenly know your daughter is stealing from the cookie jar. Ya just know. But how does the bunnie know which of the several cameras through which I was prying?
Beautiful job explaining the concepts and choke-points. This is a masterpiece of a post.
Wow! That is truly awesome feedback. Thank you!
In case you’re interested in reading more like this, check out my website: https://cosmicave.org/
Cool, thank you!
It’s correct but incomplete.
I have a new theory for space-time.
I proved that space came into being through the transformation of time.
Is that transformations linear???.What about the units the space units are different for time units?? I guess you used a lot of differential geometry techniques in order to achieve your theory??? I wish you success in your project..
Finally some good inputs here!
This whole article shows exactly where the flaw in GR and the concept of space-time lies. Einstein was looking for a purely local description of gravity—no spooky action at a distance, like Newtonian gravity. He couldn’t work it out in math; Hilbert helped him out and turned to the abstract math of higher-dimensional spaces, merging space and time into a pseudo-Riemannian manifold. This is a purely mathematical hack. Further, to make things even less physical, a pseudo-tensor was introduced to hide the fact that energy conservation is not accounted for in GR—something Emmy Noether pointed out (check Curt Jaimungal’s channel for an in-depth video about this). Nowadays, most scientists working on gravity agree GR is incomplete, or even wrong.
How can a block universe just be? This immediately begs the question: How can such a complex thing just be, without a creator? Where did it come from? This raises more questions than answers and is ultimately inconsistent with Occam’s razor.
In my Emerging Universe Framework, gravity is a flow, entirely consistent and compatible with space-time curvature, but physical—a flow of vacuum energy toward massive objects. This is proposed in other models too, but never fully worked out. The main questions arising: What is flowing, and where does it flow to? Why don’t we see scattering from collisions or heating? All these questions are answered in my framework: The universe is an emerging flow of energy, originating in the vacuum, the battery of the cosmos. Via emerging spikes akin to rogue waves on the ocean, energy gets trapped or confined into toroidal rings, carrying angular momentum and spin (this is explored by others too). I have modeled in detail how these “vacuons” form denser and denser clouds over cosmic times (forget the big bang). Eventually, these clouds collide and create compression zones, the large-scale structure of the universe. In these zones, vacuons are compressed into each other, forming trifold fractal geometries, the particles we know. They grow like snowflakes in the right conditions. But here’s the kicker: They have charge, mass, and spin, but they need vacuons to be stable, to interact via the EM field. Mass is not a perpetual motion machine—that is the key insight here. So massive objects consume massive amounts of vacuons. Vacuons emerge in the vacuum of (interstellar and intergalactic) space and flow in cosmic rivers toward massive objects. The surplus of vacuons that form drives expansion. Everything is emergent.
Space, time equations are human imaginations. They all play along, as we imagined and fixed them in equate in our own perspective. But, we can only go beyond our perspective,if we ever confirm, who really is the creator of the whole universe and beyond?