Einstein and the Space-Time deceit. 'Time' has nothing to do with 'Space'.

'Curved' space and geodesics brings us back to Aristotle and Greek gods who managed planetary motions. 'Space-time' was needed to resolve the error in Einstotle's maths.

“The uncertainty principle [of Quantum Mechanics] thus deprives one of any way whatsoever to predict, or even to give meaning to, “the deterministic classical history of space evolving in time.” No prediction of spacetime, therefore no meaning for spacetime, is the verdict of the quantum principle. That object which is central to all of classical general relativity, the four-dimensional spacetime geometry, simply does not exist, except in a classical approximation.” (Misner, Thorne, Wheeler, Gravitation, 1973, pp. 1182-83)

Space merged with time and being ‘curved’ is one of the great mysticisms from the Church of ‘The Science’. It is nonsense of course. See the quote aboe. Einstein knew it was a fable. He even admitted that the universe is Euclidean, not a geometrically curved dimension.

The Science News Letter of April 2, 1932 stated:

“Einstein and De Sitter Return to Euclidean Idea of Cosmos: Prof. Albert Einstein, father of relativity, says that space may be and probably is the sort of uncurved, three-dimensional space that Euclid imagined and countless generations of schoolboys have learned…Prof. Willem de Sitter, Dutch astronomer, who had built his own shape of universe on Einsteinian foundations, joins with Prof. Einstein in espousing space which is on the average Euclidean….This joint announcement… is sure to cause a furor in the world of science.…In the Euclidean universe now re-enthroned, light travels in straight lines and goes on and on forever and ever.”

The merger of space with time is one of the great deceptions in ‘The Science’. The 2 concepts have nothing to do with each other. They are merged to correct errors in Relativity’s maths, and to compensate for the very weak force that is gravity, and to explain how planets over billions (soon trillions?) of Darwinian years, serenely glide around their ‘star’.

The Error

Einstein’s tensor calculus error which produces a tautology, makes it impossible to achieve a solution of the General Relativity Tensor which is consistent with provable Eucliden geometry. It is thereby false. Einstotle struggled and agonised over this discrepancy for almost 2 years according to his hagiographers, retreating to the desert one supposes, fasting, praying and asking Saint Darwin for help. Help did arrive in the form of Riemann’s geometry and curved space. This allowed the mathematical issues to be resolved, but still did not provide enough rigour, given that the GRT violated the ‘Principles’ of Relativity and Equivalency upon which it is based.

Gravity is a relativistic phenomena and this ensured that General Relativity contained enough truth to refine Newtonian gravitational theory to agree with the observed precession of Mercury’s orbit, observed ‘red shift’ of solar spectral lines, and the bending of the path of starlight or photons by the Sun’s gravitational field.

Gravity will bend light. You don’t bend space to bend starlight, unless your maths make no sense and you need to repair errors in the code. Merging time into space, is as ridiculous as merging light beam transference with space to form another dimension (given that light speed is the basis of time, this is in effect what they are doing).

What is ‘Time’?

There are a number of problems with ‘time’ in modern physics and cosmology, which undermine most of what we are told is ‘The Science’, including Relativity and ‘The Big Bang’. Many posts on this substack outline why both are false, but one could simply take the concept of ‘time’. ‘The Science’™ is unscientific about ‘time’. In fact many within ‘The Science’™ declare time to be an illusion. They are right. Spacetime as a 4th dimension is indeed an illusion.

When we critically review what ‘time’ actually means, we began to understand that much of modern cosmology is simply a philosophical exercise based on assumptions, many of which are wrong. Metaphysics is not physics, it is classified as philosophy.

Wrong definitions

‘The Science’ has its own fictitious definition of ‘time’. In Einstein’s relativity theories, time operates within the fantasy world of ‘spacetime’. Spacetime is now accepted as canonical gospel, but it is a fabricated, never proven 4-dimensional mathematical construction, derived by ‘magic’ according to some scientists. It was Minkowski, Einstein’s maths teacher who first proposed it, at least in its modern form. Einstein initially was aghast and rejected it, than when it was necessary and useful to fill out his theorems he consumed it whole without attribution or reference.

In this simulation, time is merged into space. To explain how this operates, the gospel writers invoke divine revelation through advanced mathematics. Only a few incense-bearing priests of ‘The Science’™ have the celestial wisdom and knowledge to understand what these arcane equations might reveal but they are certain that time can travel backwards, forwards and even stand still. Don’t ask for proof, that results in an excommunication.

Elastic ideas

Mechanically, ‘The Science’™ agrees that a specific definition of time was established by 1967. ‘Time’ is calculated as the duration of a number of oscillations of light from a certain atom, under particular circumstances. This specificity seems rather elastic. Using this definition time can be measured against a meter of distance.

Time measurement can also be applied to light travel, denoted as a light year which sounds ‘short’ and which is only 6 trillion miles in human understanding (keep that in mind when fantasists claim that we can whiz over to Alpha Centauri which is ‘only’ 4.3 light years away and cavort with Chewbaca and the shapely alien females in the local bar).

Defining time as a duration of light oscillations from an atom might permit cosmologists to work back toward a beginning of the universe to estimate the age of what we see around us. As Newton perceived though Einstein denied, space or the universe is the most logical reference frame against which to measure cosmological time. The universe itself however, has no conception of time and given that we don’t know much about ‘time’, or even the variant speed of light, it is entirely reasonable to assume that time varies by distance, by epoch, by calculation and by observer.

What we do know is that time, because it is a calculation, can never be merged into a spatial map.

Problems with ‘Time’

The universe and nature, who is not your mother, function perfectly well without ‘time’. Time is entirely a human invention and a necessity judging by how we organise ourselves and society. Time does not exist outside of human consciousness. No other creature and certainly no immaterial or inanimate object or process, cares about ‘time’ or its measurement, or how it can be applied to light travel or the speed of light. Time and its application only affect humans who create models to understand its passage. These models and their assumptions might well be wrong.

We can list some problems with modern cosmology’s materialistic view of time:

1. Human time is likely vastly different than the Earth’s time, given we don’t know much if anything about how this planet was created or how humans were built or formed and when (in reality the Big Bang is a laughingstock when trying to explain how planets formed and evolution is not a science, the human brain for example, cannot ‘evolve’ in random chance steps from a bacterium),

2. Cosmic time is likely very different than Earth time due to gravity, and variations in the speed of light over time and distance (Einstein supported this view though his time dilation is in disrepair),

3. Time can never go ‘slower’, this is nonsensical, we can adjust our local clocks but not ‘time’ per se given that universal time does not slow down,

4. ‘Time’ can never be a 4^th dimension merged into space, this contradicts basic science, given that we live in a 3-dimensional universe of length, width and depth or latitude, longitude and height (see quote above, Relativity is completely incorrect on this).

Spaced out

If we consider the last point, or the merger of a spatial map with ‘time’, we will understand what a nonsense Relativity is. Right now, or ‘at this point in time’, we have a single point along a time axis. Upon this time axis there is no dimension to ‘now’, nor is there ever a dimension in a single point.

Einstein’s spacetime dimension is simply a conversion into a distance, by multiplying time by a speed. That speeed might be right or wrong but even that is irrelevant. His output of four dimensions applied to the same unit or ‘now’ of time is simply illogical.

Time is not a distance. Time is a calculation.

Einstein’s space-time dimension is therefore unscientific and tautological.

Earth in the pillow imagery.

Time is illusory

Space or better yet the universe, is the only standard frame of reference for cosmological analysis. This fact is rejected by Relativity and The Science™. We know based on the James Webb Telescope data, that the universe is a flat disc which contravenes most of modern cosmology. Without the curvature of space, Einstein’s Relativity is again proven a failure. However, more to the point, if we look at ‘time’ in the context of the vastness of the universe, time means absolutely nothing. Time must be measured and only humans do this.

We know that:

1. Space is not curved, neither locally nor within the Universe as a whole,

2. Spacetime is an incorrect mathematical construction, and even the most elaborate and elegant equations cannot make space curve,

3. Gravity delays all processes including light travel and gravity will of course ‘bend’ light as it travels around planets.

Take the last point. If we measure time and perceive that clocks are ‘going slower’ due to gravity, does that mean anything? For my reference frame called the universe, it means nothing.

No other process in the universe is affected by my clock calculation showing that due to gravity, light speed is variant and slows down depending on the media through which it travels. I can construct complicated maths to prove it all. They might be right or wrong. But for the universe at large my clocking of local ‘time’ has not changed ‘universal’ time, which in reality does not exist, or if it does, could care less about a local phenomenon.

Therefore, when Einstein and the Relativists interpret a clocked ‘delay’ of a process, as a ‘delay’ of time itself, they are obviously incorrect. What they are ‘clocking’ is a local phenomenon. It is not universal. The universe is completely indifferent to local ‘clocking’ or gravity distorted measurements of ‘time’. Time ‘just is’.

Spacetime Fantasy

The wizards usually invoke 2 contradictory themes when it comes to space, time and gravity. Remember that merging space and time provides the missing ‘force’ to explain the phenomena of celestial orbits and patterns, which Newtonian gravity cannot resolve:

1. ‘The Gravitational field creates energy from nothingness within ‘universal fields’ which does not violate the law of the conservation of energy. Or,

2. Gravity is not a force per se, but a geometrical expression of universal wave energy.

In order to merge space and time within the general relativity theory, Einstein equated acceleration with gravity. In other words, Einstein declared that gravity is no longer a ‘force’, it was now a mathematical geometry. What he proposed was that masses, such as the Sun and the Earth, curve space around them, and that all movements within ‘space’ are guided by these curvatures. Somehow this curved space generates gravitational wave forces.

This wizardry has no basis in reality. The only first-order effect of gravity, is the ‘force’ which keeps the ample buttocks fastened to a chair, or prevents water in the oceans from spilling over the shore as the Earth supposedly rotates and spins at the dizzying pace of 1000 miles per hour. How does that work exactly? There is no possibility, outside of Merlin’s magic show, that ‘curved space’ can account for why you are glued to your chair, and why oceanic water does not runneth and spilleth over.

Or consider the claim that ‘gravity is not really a force’. This declaration is another example of maths wizardry. The claim is obviously false. All masses exert a gravitational influence. But according to the wizards of Relativity, what we feel as a force, is not a force! Keep that in mind the next time you jump. You can test the theory by casting yourself off a ten floor high building and see if gravity is not a ‘force’.

Such obfuscation is necessary to try to explain what ‘The Science’™ cannot describe, namely, the perfect patterns of planetary motion. Given that gravity is a weak force, it is a problem that modern cosmology cannot resolve since it refuses to admit that other forces such as the Coriolis or electro-magnetism must be at work in the aether of space to generate the phenomena we can see around us. Enter ‘geodesics’ and magical ‘patterns’, or the ball in a pillow analogy.

This deliberate, philosophically induced blindness, is deemed ‘scientific’.

Bottom Line: Back to Aristotle

Einstein admitted that the universe is Euclidean. Yet according to ‘The Science’™ all movement in space will follow the physically unproven lines of ‘geodesics’, or patterns determined by the curvature of spacetime, which exists around planetary masses such as the Sun and our own Earth. Gravity is no longer a force, but simply geometry. Perforce the Earth will follow its geodesic pattern around the Sun due to the curvature of space. When, how or why ‘geodesic’ lines were produced is never answered.

Spacetime is a religious belief in which space curvature happened, because according to mathematical models, it must happen. It formed this way just because it formed this way. Geodesics are real just because they must be real or the equations don’t work.

Spacetime as a cult belief is not far different than Aristotle’s contention that planetary movements were due to a pantheon of gods, each one responsible for a planet and its motion. Hence the names of Greek and Roman gods which are familiar to all of us. I can see no difference between Aristotle’s pantheism, Copernicus’ ‘crystalline spheres’ and Einstein’s theory relegating gravity to a maths theorem, which demands a divine creation of ‘geodesics’, managed by invisible gods who then ‘save the phenomena’.

All hail.

===

Related posts:

Why Light, Time and Redshifting do not support establishment doctrine

Spacetime fantasy and 'The Science'. Why the gospel around 'time' is wrong.