'Spacetime' and curvature cartoons. Fantasy and dogma replacing reality.
Light waves will bend in space. Space does not bend to allow planets to orbit stars or larger masses. $cientism.
(cosmology is metaphysics, not science)
Space is curved?
There is no evidence that space is ‘curved’. The James Webb Telescope and plenty of other data indicates our universe is a flat disc. ‘The Science’ has never been able to explain the ‘god awful’ truth that planetary motions are not only predictable but seemingly magical. It is indeed a mystery. Given that gravity is a weak force, why doesn’t the Earth simply ‘spin off’ from the Sun and go on a canter through universal space? How is it possible that the relationship between the Sun and Earth includes the perfect distance, the perfect speed, the perfect orbit? Besides zero, what is the ‘chance’ that all of this occurred from ‘random chance’?
‘The Science’ does not have an answer for any of these basic questions. In order to improve Newtonian physics and explain the how ‘mass attraction’ keeps planets in their orbital paths, Einstein and Relativists resorted to inventing a curvature of space where planets follow ‘geodesic lines’ around their star. Apparently, ‘geodesics’ formed just because they had to form. They are there according to the mathematical models, so therefore it happened.Â
Curvaturists and their space cartoons
No observational evidence supports the claim of the curvaturists. Their theory is that the curvature of space occurs around masses, and this is the reason the Moon remains in orbit about the Earth.  Such a claim requires a very large ‘depression’ within the fabric of space that should be visible to us. The curvaturists maintain that the curvature would be the same in all directions for observers on Earth. Due to this we cannot see star displacement in the sky.Â
The claim of the curvaturists is a cartoon of science. If our Sun did create a depression or impression in space, which forced the Earth and other planets to stay in their orbits, this distortion would certainly be both observable and measurable. Or to look at from another viewpoint, if we want to claim that the Sun has distorted space and curved it which keeps the planets in rotation and alignment, we must be able to see that curvature and measure it. If we cannot see and measure the curvature it means that it simply does not exist.
If there was a curvature of space which prevented say Venus from flying off into deep space, we would be able to not only see such a deformation in the fabric of space, but we would be able to measure it and ruminate on its dimensions if not its origins. It is absurd to claim that Venus is kept in position by an undetectable but incredibly deep ‘bend’ in space when plainly no such bend or depression is seen. We are talking about large orbs possessing great mass hanging against the background of universal space. It is unreasonable to state that we should not see a disturbance in the cosmic background, nor a general derangement in the position of stars. The claim is junk science.
(universe as a flat disc, where are the geodesics?)
Einstein’s gibberish
Most people are frightened by Einstein’s and modern cosmology’s theories. Given that they are in the main, incorrect, no one should be afraid of them. Many posts on this substack explain what they are on about in simple terms. Einstein and the priestly wizards of physics and cosmology have always made their theories far more difficult to understand than they really are. Their maths includes tensor calculus that few understand, chi and rho symbols whch add ‘gravitas’ if not illusions and endless volumes of arcane equations that few comprehend. Writing their gospel in such code allows them to keep power and control.Â
Einstein attempted to combine time and space for a reason. He had to explain the attraction of planets and orbits. Einstein regarded time as being dependent on gravitational fields, and space.  In his equations time itself is regarded as a fourth dimension, located on the coordinates of points in space, (x,y,z) on a fictitious 4th axis with a time value, t.  A specific point or what is sometimes called an ‘event’, will thus contain the coordinates, (t,x,y,z).  Time is of course unrelated to distance, so this 4-dimensional abstract is not based on reality. There is never a time dimension to a point on a 3-D axis.
We know that in the real world, we live in a 3-dimensional Euclidean model with x, y and z axes.  We know that time – a human only calculation and never a distance – is for the human mind real enough. It is however never merged into space or a spatial map.
In essence according to the Relativists, what spacetime indicates is that there is no past, present or future. Or even more absurdly, all the particles in the universe can travel from the current to the past or the future. Hence time travel. For Relativists there is no reality to ‘time’, you might be in the present now, but also in the past. As with quantum mechanics and its claim that the photon can be in 2 places at once, with spacetime we have the macro problem of Schrödinger’s cat which might be alive or dead, or indeed in 2 universes at the same time in different states. Time is relative you see. Reality is optional you understand.
Space and light
Space or the universe and its background is not a ‘vacuum’ and has no connection to ‘time’ as a ‘dimension’. Space is a medium in which electromagnetic and gravitational waves propagate.  These waves emanate at the quantum and macro level. They will contain particles and subatomic molecules. Space is alive with rays, neutrinos, cosmic explosions, quantum level fluctuations and fields; not to mention planets, quasars, and galaxies. It is not a vacuum.Â
In space both gravitational and electromagnetic waves propagate with a speed measured by humans as the speed of light.  These measurements might be wrong or right, ‘space’ could care less. The media within space as mentioned above, will determine the speed. Light is invariant and inconstant depending on gravity and the medium it moves through.  Light has a lower speed in gravitational fields including those possessed by planets.Â
Based on the above we know that space has nothing to do with ‘time’.Â
Gospel as nonsense
The doctrine of the curvature of space is connected to the incorrect constant and limited speed of light. That everything is observed by light and light only is another philosophy that is incorrect. But even if we accept this, spacetime curvature only reveals itself in a mathematical construction, not in the real world.  When light from a distant star is bent in the gravitational field of the Sun, the light is bent in space.  It is not space, that is curved or bent, but the light wave.Â
To restate the bleedingly obvious, it is the light wave which is distorted and curved, not space.
Once you leave Relativity and re-enter reality you will know that:
-Attraction between objects with no mutual connection is a fantasy,
-Attraction between masses is a reality, but it is not explained by the theories of Relativity,
-We can observe forces which ‘push’ or apply ‘pressure’ between objects,
-A ‘pull’ attraction between objects has never been observed or proven.
We know the above are true because we can observe our Moon. It is a large object. It moves quickly. Why doesn’t it float off to deep space? The Earth’s gravity, along with other universal forces like the Coriolis, keeps the Moon in an orbit. It is fair to say that we don’t really know why the Moon does not float away. Yes, gravity plays a role, but gravity is a weak force and it is obviously not the only force at work. Â
Yet with Relativity and Einstein’s theories, we are told that gravity possesses no force at all!Â
How do you reconcile the above with Newton? Relativists proclaim (and ‘spacetime’ promotes) that gravitational attraction is the same as ‘acceleration’. In other words, gravity is no longer a ‘force’, it is now part of a geometrical acceleration explained only by complex mathematics.  In this fantasy world, the Moon just follows its ‘geodesic’, or the geometrical curvature of space due to the Earth’s mass, serenely sailing around our Earth in the seas of space. Space itself is perforce deformed and distorted by curvatures and other ‘geodesics’ which we cannot, (but should be able to) see and measure within our solar system. Balls on a pillow and all that nonsense.
Bottom Line
Let us be free of science fiction and fantasy such as the ‘spacetime dimension’. It is gibberish. Observational data is clear that the universe is a flat disc, probably much smaller than current estimations, and perhaps even static. Redshifting is due to low light frequency – which can never change – and is thus not proof of massively accelerating galaxies or long ages. We know that we live in a Euclidean 3-dimensional world, and we know that time which is a human calculation, can never be ‘theorised’ into a distance or tortured into being a ‘dimension’.Â
Before the inane babble and arcana of Relativity, it was accepted that space and time were absolute and separate domains. That is still the case. We know that gravity propagates with the speed of light, as does electromagnetic energy. This is a major addition to what Newton proposed. We know that the speed of light varies which the Relativists deny. We know that space is not a vacuum and is a medium for the propagation of electromagnetic and gravitational waves, which the Relativists also deny. In reality space has nothing do with the human invention of calculating time.
Whichever way you want to look at ‘spacetime’ it is just another example of $cientism, or the absolutism of maths and models over reality and mechanical proofs. Spacetime is a metaphysical exercise using irrelevant mathematics to create junk science.
In next post we will look at the time-travel chimera.
===
Some related posts:
To me the image of the universe in your article looks like an ovoid shaped object in which the boundary is a horizon and not an edge. If that’s not the case, on the extreme left boundary, there is a large bite-sized chunk missing! Isn’t this missing chunk more likely explained as a visual artefact of the egg shape curvature. If it is a 3D elliptical (egg shaped) object would this be more consistent why the apparent 2D orbits of the planets around the sun are also eliptical ?