Spacetime is pseudoscience

 

This post is directed at those behind the public understanding of science,. That includes much of the science press and others who make the claims I'm criticizing.  So its all in the way its presented to the public and how the public ends up perceiving the message. It's prudent to keep matters logically consistent and observe the correct place of a law and the place of a theory to explain a law rather than replace it. Handling things as such means "Spacetime" as a fabric is not by necessity pseudoscience and anyone has a right to propose anything within reason in this regard.

My case is made to address the disingenuous representation of the principles associated with General Relativity by the consensus science establishment to the public. It's the public whose funding permits the Sci-fi establishment to expand on the key perversions of the standard model and obscene engineering projects, telescopes and probes which support it (thanks to an outstanding crop of engineers at JPL). In other words this is yet another arrow at where the rot is established ,most notably the standard cosmological model aka the LAMBDA CDM CONCORDANCE MODEL. 

So, because of that,  its necessary in my opinion for these things to be unpacked by us all, far more often, for the broader reputation of science. It's worth reinforcing the notion of science as belonging to everyone and as a stand alone entity from the scientific establishment, institutions, industries, think tanks, ideologies and infamous  lobby groups such as profit driven pharmaceutical industry. Science is a research tool, a method used in nearly all industries and enterprises , its not an industry in and of itself, so it follows  that no special club speaks on its behalf and no specific claim  by anyone has dominion over accountability or oversight of any industry that deems any such criticism "anti science" .

 SPACETIME IS PSEUDOSCIENCE  

Einstein's general theory of relativity was famously summed up in just 12 words by the physicist John Wheeler:

 “Space-time tells matter how to move; matter tells space-time how to curve”

But this nonchalant assessment of a speculative construction draws no apparent scrutiny to precisely which mechanism should be put forward to explain how each could possibly "tell" the other how to do anything... especially by making this assertion without a shred of evidence coming to the light of day to support the existence of this imagined spawn of space-time called "Spacetime". But the problems are only just beginning for this limelight loving little gem of fiction because, ...well, the only property of this elusive piece of guesswork parading as science ( which is geometry) doesn't actually exist either!

Without a force to drive it any mechanism for spacetime is dead in the water.

"Geometry" is not a thing. As a word, sure, we can say that its a Noun, but beyond that we are dealing with a CONCEPT.  The geometry of any physically real (or represented) object can shown because it consists of measurements, variables and relationships between them. The common term for such an organised system of interrealshionships is "mathematics" (also a concept by the way just in case anybody so far is unclear).

We can quantify, assess, predict and relate the geometry of something real to something else, or simply imagine they were for purposes such as setting tests featuring problems that require solving as if they were real. For the imagined mathematics problems the real objects, the Matter, first had to exist before we could imagine it in principle.  But now those imagined variables may be arbitrary but because we understand that they are representative of a known material physics, and we know matter exists in space with measurable dimensions, we can usefully work out the meaning and application of how those dimensions relate to each other through the angles that must by necessity arise as a logical consequence of three dimensional space. That is to say:

Every physically real material object (with material properties that can be measured directly) must exist with spatial volume always and only in three spatial dimensions. 

Two dimensions or "2D" is purely conceptual and four spatial dimensions "4D" is such a nonsense concept it cannot even be imagined and no fourth dimension of space can possibly exist in reality or even be imagined to fold three dimensional space towards.

The often cited analogy, "flatland" is used to persuade us of the false equivalence of taking a conceptual 2D paradigm we imagine a living being would experience if sentient in 2D, (which is not possible and wouldn't be equivalent if it were) and projecting that into reality as if evidencing (in principal) our expected failing to imagine a fourth spatial dimension as if it exists or could theoretically exist (nothing can exist in principle if we cannot imagine and explain that principle to someone we are asking to imagine it...what is it they are imagining?) 

This is not a small obstacle when translating reality into a construct which is not even conceptually able to be described by those putting it forward. This is an exercise more in idiocy than deception. Either way it fails to make any sort of coherent case, let alone offer evidence.

What of "Strong Theoretical Evidence? Can mathematics be evidence or is the concept of any sort of "hypothetical evidence" an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms such as "Military Intelligence"

Well it's time for you to decide that for yourself. It's time to look at the history and "thinking" of the ideas in theoretical physics that has lead to a landscape of utter nonsense and regression in big budget areas of scientific research. Nothing useful in any way has come from the space sciences, CERN, GR or Quantum Mechanics in 50 years and the wastefulness in money, minds, resources and time cant be quantified without the immediate urge to vomit.  Pop culture in edgy science consists of a litany of savants or dysfunctional polymaths without any real grounding in rationality but through nepotism and a flair for adopting a patronizing tone of voice they don't seem in any way aware of their farce or appropriately embarrassed by the damage that has been done to society as a whole.

Simply put, it's either theoretical (explanation of how) or its hypothetical (using a set of circumstances we could methodically envisage are reasonably likely to be in play given findings). It can also be evidence of part of or all of either of those. So not even contradiction by adopting a polar  position of "one or the other" but one thing is for certain. We cannot use either what's put forward as hypothesis or theory in place of evidence called for by the scientific method i.e. observations or measurements or at minimum the test of time. This is  obvious of course, but I have to qualify how prosaic my position is.

The central problem of multiple spatial dimensions.

Mathematics, in this case geometry (and a special mention to the entire String Theory movement is probably deserved) uses dimensions as degrees of freedom. That's all. No reason I can think of is inherent to their being equivalent (beyond the use of the word "Dimension") to suggest any connection whatsoever exists between them and the spatial dimensions of volume in three dimensional space (LxBxH) or to the plotting framework that becomes manifest when we plot on X, Y and Z axes, i.e. potentially all of the universe.

The premise for the fourth spatial dimension onwards (up to the thirty second dimension)  is about as rational as a pond full of wet leather. This first imperceptible dimension is thought to be so tiny as to not be resolved by our properties of conventional space. That's right, the fourth dimension by virtue of SCALE (not a dimension but rather a measurement order in terms of the known dimensions) somehow is not considered part of the three dimensions  yet is often cited to be "everywhere" (unlike the other three dimensions right?) 

So immediately that is nonsense. 

String theorists have the honor of believing that reality is a TWO dimensional hologram projected onto the surface of a three dimensional sphere....

Well, that's nonsense too, right off the bat. Nothing real is two dimensional, it's imaginary or conceptual to work in 2D..

Its really that ludicrous.  The lunatics are running the asylum's. 

If you don't believe me then hear it from them. Here is the official story on higher dimensional space, along with the timeline, backstory and main thinkers. Grab a cup of coffee, I hope you enjoy comedy?

So we have the been proposed the idea of magic beans by some. And they are using their mathemagical sorcery to take aim at the big questions. 

Such as?

It's proposed that through the only cited property of "spacetime the fabric", (geometry) that gravity is manifested.  It's not just some neat idea someone got one evening tripping on LSD. This is said to be the best science we have available to us, rumored by testimony of swarms of eyewitness know-it-alls' to being very "well tested"...

....despite being simultaneously materially undetected, immeasurable and also unfalsifiable.

So I think its fair to say "worst science we have" is another way of putting it. Or perhaps "idea for a far-out sci-fi movie" would be a bit better. But that is just trying to be polite. I'm sure anyone reading this understands that really these are all just euphemisms for "Tripping Balls". That's not something the sugar dusted, leather bound, lab coat wearing (in their avatars) puff pastry's who secure annual R&D or grant funding for their musings are used to hearing. They are only used to receiving  praise. This needs to change and it needs to change fast. I'll suggest why I say this.

Too much time has been wasted "showing respect" to the "qualified experts doing their best with the available science". That is just something that is said. There is no evidence of that, everything points towards the opposite being true. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that massive sums of public funding are being assigned to R&D and grant funding or projects that lead nowhere and achieve nothing more that permit treading intellectual water with positions trusted to those demonstrating no concrete progress regarding investigation of promising leads or any move away from the garbage  which is constantly and consistently lauded as our best thinking whereas what has been shown is only that these abstract pontifications are nothing more than time wasting distractions. Accountability needs to come and SOON.

But let's focus and be serious with the issue at hand here for a second.  If the current crop of Nobel Prize winners isn't knowingly creating a meaningless career and sabotaging the progress of humankind, then what is their goal because in that case I'm just not seeing it?

Is it really their goal tp make tangible progress? If so then I have news for them, after all these decades, this is not a good sign.

And lets face it, a physically real manifold phenomenon is about as likely as a sack of wet mice uniting the four heavyweight boxing title belts....with the Buddhist Philosophy... and then sharing their story with the world through interpretive dance.

Despite this weakness, in broader pop culture its regularly and seriously put forward as scientifically rigorous to view gravity acting on the property we call mass and producing a mutually attractive "force" (lets call it that since ultimately that's what it amounts to and other word services this need in available language). By way of mechanism this is said to be a consequence of the interaction between matter and "Spacetime" geometry. Exactly how is not apparently important because what's important is that Einstein dreamed it up. As everyone knows, Einstein is proved right every other Tuesday and twice on leap years. 

So it turns out the same fabric of the universe which we will never sense, test of falsify, now turns out to be MORE fundamental than the observed force most commonly, or rather exclusively, experienced.

Forces: They have things in common

The FORCE of gravity has always been universally observed, directly measurable to all, and utterly without a single recorded instance in all of history where any actual physically real thing escaped its real influence, even for a nanosecond. 

Now THAT is what we can with confidence and credibility asses as "well tested" by everyone.

As we all know, and it bears repeating:

No evidence can be gathered together to support spacetime as a physical fabric, and no means can be devised to test its workings or properties, and its one proposed property, it's geometry can not be explained as possessing means to influence anything, no mechanism is even so much as put forward as a possibility.  

But it's more certain that gravity is a consequence of that than being a force which I can measure in my bathroom in within 10 seconds....

The problems compound for the theories these principles are part of, such as GR

I'm not aware of any engineering based on GR, not even GPS which is a widely spread myth. The world runs on electricity, software and technology, industry or engineering based on Maxwell, Edison, Tesla, Faraday, Newton etc.

So "well speculated" is actually what they mean.

Now as I keep saying,  it is often stated that gravity is caused by the geometry of spacetime. However, nobody puts forward a mechanism by which geometry (a concept) influences matter or inertia absent of a force to drive it. In order to state anything as if backed by science we need evidence. We have evidence (direct evidence) that gravity is a force, it's called MUTUAL ATTRACTION and its directly measurable to us on a massive body as weight in lbs. or kg or whatever you prefer, which is an interpretation of n/m of force.

Challenge: 

I would appeal to anyone claiming that "Spacetime" the fabric, whose geometry "tells matter how to move" to please propose what evidence there is to top the direct evidence we have for gravity being a force? Please propose by what means we can falsify the hypothesis that the geometry of spacetime causes gravity...

... and also give their weight in degrees of curvature?

Also, please propose a testable means to establish geometry being able to exert influence over matter/mass/inertia?

It should noted that I am not in any way stating that I have any reason to take issue with the recent repackaged explanation of "Spacetime" this simple four coordinate system comprising three spatial dimensions and time. This recent incarnation seeks to simply claim ownership of "Space" and "time" for purposes explained as equivalent to rendezvous at a place in time, a prosaic concept that certainly was not invented by Albert Einstein and even more certainly did not require any unusual  levels of genius to be conceived. Moreover, this obviously doesn't explain gravity in any novel way (or in any way whatsoever mind you). What it does do is dodge all the associated dead ends inherent in the suggestion that a hypothetical model lacking any testable mechanism in terms of the known laws of physics thus far proposed to facilitate any real world influence to suggest its existence as a physically real and fundamental aspect of the nature. 

I propose that spacetime as a physical fabric does not satisfy these three basic criteria required to fulfil the basic scrutiny. I mention scrutiny as outlined by the scientific method for physics or the requirements of a good theory in theoretical physics since Spacetime is part of a theory, the theory of GR. 

If the criteria of theoretical physics is strived for then, since the theory of relativity admits its status as correctly seeking an explanation of a law. If you think about it then that is a tacit admission that gravity is a force which as a word has a dictionary definition that practically defines mutual attraction and the meaning of words backed by direct evidence MUST be seen as the gold standard and cannot be usurped by "theoretical evidence" which is almost by definition oxymoronic.

So as anyone can see, this case makes itself. It is self evident.