Spacetime is the trampoline. The universe is the trampoline. All you do is move through it like you would move over a trampoline.

The usual example is like standing on a trampoline or something. You put a dent right under your feet. The further away from you on the trampoline, the flatter the surface becomes. It's pretty much the same but in 3 dimensions instead of 2. You do warp spacetime but you're _very_ small and not very dense so you don't cause any amount of warping that matters.

Spacetime is just the grid we exist on. Every object can have an x, y, z, and time coordinate to describe its location in the universe. While all mass warps space time, very massive objects produce enough warp to be easily seen.

The earth would fly off in a straight line if the sun disappeared. But the sun warps spacetime so the earth orbits this warped part of spacetime.

Spacetime is everywhere (except maybe inside the event horizon of a black hole). Even where matter is. If you had an x/y plane and put a point on it. That point is not separate from the grid.

Maybe it's a heat transmission thing? Dropping the cube in hot water will continually melt the outer later as it's exposed. Luke warm water, has a slower transition which may allow water below the cube surface to liquefy, creating stress?

Ok so it's more about ship b's progress is compressed and then ship a is essentially watching the ffwd version of the information coming to them.

So from ship a's perspective, they are

1. closer to earth than ship b and

2. the speed of ship b appears to be faster than ship a?

Ok so at a significant % of c the distance appears shorter... But if you stop does the distance appear to increase as you slow down?

I know this is kinda beaten to death here but here goes...

2 ships traveling near c from opposite directions equidistant from Earth. Each would not see the other traveling near c due to relativity. From each's perspective they should arrive at Earth first as the other would appear to not be moving at all right?

Many Worlds in One by Alex Valenkin(sp), was a fun cosmology read. Some history thrown in too.

What about after that? Is quark degeneracy pressure what might be the full collapse to a bh?

Does that imply a quark star is a possibility?

The "material" of a neutron star is just that neutrons. All of the electrons in the atoms are pressed into the protons, turning them into neutrons. I forget is this is neutron or electon degeneracy pressure... But it ceases to be made of atoms at that point.

Oh like a heap? Last in first out?

Like all science that is only the meaning until it's disproven. The fact that assuming something is fundamental makes all the math work and produces expected results is all that's required. If it suddenly stopped producing expected results, the rules would be changed and it wouldn't be fundamental anymore or the change would simply be applied to the old one.