APPENDIX L INCORRECTNESS OF CURVED SPACE-TIME
So reading about general relativity theory this idea of curved space is not something I am not getting. First of all its said1 space is flat in classical theory. No space is 3-D, flat is only a conceptual thing for figuring trajectory's etc. Space is 3-D and “open” (as proven above under “The Incorrectness of Point Forces” essay by logical reasoning stemming from everyday observation), so how curved? What’s around the curves etc.? This curved space is only a mathematical projection from equations, I believe, without conceptual value. Apparently physics now leans upon these mathematical abstractions, but should not as all formulas go back to some conception shown by experiment or observation at some point. So the candle is being burned at both ends in saying there is no need to have real concepts, as long as the formulas validate data, but that data came from applying conceptions at some point. It's not logical. Further it’s said out daily conceptions are prejudices to the truth, perhaps, but perhaps the truth lends itself to our state of conception also. It must at some point or any theory is meaningless, or at least contradictory as stated earlier. I would say our common conceptions of space and time are fine, and it’s the theory that has not been structured correctly. One theory lends itself to wave particle duality, that’s fine, to me that means we have particles that are in an ether, or more accurately are the ether, that is why waves are created and particles are at the center of them. Working toward this end should produce a better theory and it will match with logical concepts. I have been opened up to this idea due to my hypotheses which followed this path and seemed to makes sense to me as it has shown the potential to fill the hard to fill gaps in current theory. These gaps have lent themselves to the ideas of curved space with no absolute reality of time or space, which is quite illogical as I see it. With my hypothesis there are novel ways to account for the combination of wave-particle duality that I am quite sure have never been considered before, ways that preserve classical mechanics.
I previously proved space is three-dimensional, and forces (actions at a distance) do not exist. This disproves curved space in itself. I was shown matter is corpuscular. This moves through space (if vice versa then matter could not interact as ALL space would be moving in unison around ALL matter). Matter does not displace space, as if by hypothesis all matter was removed to leave a void, it would be the same as the void of space, so is one continuity. To ascribe void 1 & void 2 is to play number games, either it is one property or not, it cannot be just imaged to be different. This is basic logic. Nor is a part of space able to flow from another part of space, as that would cause displacement of area of space, which would violate the notion of continuity in ways that are logically wrong again. So along with the proof that space is 3-D it is also just been shown it is not subject to being depressed by mass as in Einstein's Theory of Relativity. In these equations that are not conceptually correct, the variables tweaked are simply paralleling other correct, but unknown concepts that creates the same effect, even across different applications of the theory. A simple example of this is the idea of relative motion. If a rolling cannon ball hits a wall the force of impact is the same in an equation as if the wall was moving to hit the cannonball. But one equation is a valid concept, the other is not.
I see no problem with the Newtonian explanation for circular orbits. Einstein thought the sensation of weightlessness was a puzzle in that he stated that the weightless person was traveling the shortest path through curved space, that was why he felt weightless. Essentially Einstein made space and time an illusion of sorts. Whereas it is weightlessness that is the illusion instead. Weight mathematically speaking is a force of mass x acceleration. There is no question from an outside observer that the person in a space ship is being pulled along by gravity the same as the ship, except in the slightest deviation do to non-instantaneous transfer of momentum (which produce weightless effects), but in terms of f(g) = m x a of the astronaut, there is no real problem! So the need to explain the situation by invoking curved space is not needed because the astronaut feels weightless!
Euclidean geometry is correct logically. Above I have shown matter and space have dimensions*. Very simple logic is that the dimensions of space are infinite in all directions, else what's on the other side of where they stop? I gave logical proof why matter is corpuscular. If by chance there is curved space, surrounded by who knows what, matter traveling in it would not be influenced by that shape because it’s still three dimensional only with a curvilinear boundary. Matter, having dimension as shown, does not travel on a two dimensional plane, curved or not. This is a mathematical abstraction of the grossest extent. One can make axioms for such curvilinear shapes, but they lie within a greater Euclidean space, also Euclidean space lies within them, else they are only two-dimensional. But the point is also this, it is the matter that travels in straight lines or curves though any space, it is not logically (as proven above) the space that determines the path of the matter, hence gravity is not as Einstein described. The real reason, I believe, equations of curved space work for describing certain phenomena is that objects sometime travel though space in curved trajectories or under pressures, or incidences, that induce curvature.
Motion takes time because of the void. Motion within matter is instantaneous (see Appendix B). Matter could have any velocity, even infinite, but since things we know take time the velocities must not be infinite. It is a fundamental property of matter that it moves (else no flux and no reality). It must move at a certain rate, else it is instantaneous or not moving, and our world of voids, matter and non-instantaneous motion of matter would not exist. Therefore matter moves at a certain rate, therefore time must be a fundamental property and absolute. How to measure it a much more complicated issue though.
* See also section at end of Appendix I, Frames of Reference.
1 David Lindley, The End of Physics, New York BasicBooks /Harper Collins 1993, p.81 paragraph 3, line 1&2