Fundamentally simple, self evident principles or "facts" in science that have been complicated and rendered nonsensical to protect the dying and discredited standard model

So the aspects of our reality ought to have physically real dimensions that we can measure or at least material properties that we can also measure. By no stretch of the imagination could this be considered an unreasonable minimum standard. This really is the crux of things.  If someone tells you there is a fabric of space/time or spacetime (or whatever), surely it must be measurable by anyone? 

In the context of communication this is especially useful.  If it is measurable it is then a quantifiable and mutually understood MATERIAL PROPERTY of matter. In each and every case it would then be able interact with other matter through the known laws of physics. Its properties can then (to a reasonable extent) become the very variables that can be mathematically related to other variables. 

It is not a material property if you measure by inferring or deducing, that is the turf of theorising or hypothesising. Even more importantly, when you discover that your measurement does not reconcile with your hypothetical prediction make no conclusion based on assuming that your prediction is right. That is to say, you shouldnt ever insert any sort of dark factor, or fudge factor and certainly don't ever make up the difference with make believe or speculation. If you do then it must be said that you've asserted that the error margin can't be your method, so it therefore must be invisible and undetectable , but there.

It's staggering that this should ever need to be pointed out. Obviously this is not the sort of reasoning that can ever be reconciled with the scientific method. Nobody can make such a case no matter how creative they are. I don't think this should be reconcilable with theoretical physics either, but more on that later.

What you are supposed to do is check your method, consider your variables, double check and if you still cannot achieve predictive success then sorry for you, you now have to come up with an alternative hypothesis or find and correct the error in your current hypothesis.

Is this unclear or vague?  I would argue no. To me its clear and also simple. How are you on this principle?

This is not even a serious question since its self evidently clear to anyone who is even barely conscious even when no thinking especially clearly,  critically or independently. But let's press on? 

I'm sure everyone has some awareness that there are actually a variety of terms for this approach, known in various guises as:

• The Scientific Method including falsifiability (involving all of the following but of course each of the following can also stand alone outside of science)
• Deductive Reasoning.
• An investigation where confirmation bias is temporarily seen as diligent to create leads which must then be eliminated by evidence where possible
• Logical rationale, usually through some sort of process of elimination
• Empirical determination
• Commonly understandable, verifiable, communicable approaches using mutually accepted unambiguous standards.

When framing these aporoaches in a broader context in society where contemporary will insist on imposing themselves, I concede that It is a subjective imperitive to decide where philosophy and metaphysics factor in. At least where communication or public understanding are involved. Even if not suitable candidates for method itself, they certainly have their place in the broader conversation.

There is also something called politics, which is quite different. Politics typically involves:

• Voting
• Consensus
• Institutions
• Establishment
• Agendas
• Human ego and pride 
• Varying degrees of Corruption
• Some or other form of Nepotism
• Economic philosophy such as  (broadly) capitalism, currency vs money etc
• Social philosophies such as democracy, the state, a republic, representative government, oversight, monarchy or anarchy.

As humans we have to vigilent. Anyone who believes science is important understands which aspects of both of these we need to be mindful of and for which purpose.

If a special cult is the only one who can talk to a culturally vital being, politically their social currency goes up. If a special group is the only one who can measure something, or see the emperor's clothes, they are positioned for political control above ANY stated method. If consensus and voting are added its even worse. This should mean that they don't get to be sciences representative on earth, since nobody should. The custodians must serve the method. That's how it works ever since Galileo got the ball rolling and moved the focus from establishment to method (and evidence and results.)

This is unequivocally not negotiable.

But is it happening? You tell me!

Here are the two scientific disciplines with arguably the worst predictive success (depending on your criteria, but the case is sound). Consider it an experiment to put yourself in their shoes. Despite decades of no predictive success, its fair to say that no new Impact of human CO2 on atmospheric CO2 theories or hypothesis are emerging. None are permitted in the establishments process if they threaten the establishment, which must always have as priority the preservation of the status quo (or advancement obviously).

What would you conclude in principle? If your career, reputation and funding depended on certain out comes would you do what you could to maintain the status quo? This way we can all relate to how easy it it is is to get your identity involved with an ideology. Its arguably inevitable.

Now forget all of that.

If something is not measurable then it is  = to basically magic beans.  You can obviously infer a measurement, with clever detective work when the understanding of certain dynamics is solid. But only AFTER someone has directly measured something as first existing, not before.

Above: The simple, simelar dynamics of forces in action. Or would you say this represents simelarity between a force and "Spacetime"? If the latter then where are the degrees of curvature? Newtons unit of measure didn't need that or have that info. Where is the time dilation? The distance of this 4 coordinate system of nvolving 3 spacial dimensions and time? And by what means does it impart influence over inertia, momentum etc? Through which laws of physics? Where are all these required measurements? They will NEVER be directly measureable which puts it fundamentally at odds with science.

To those who tell you otherwise. Unless they have evidence dont you think they can rather go take a hike? 

Before thinking these standards unreasonable consider that even a field can be measured despite being invisible. There is actually enough scope.  We can measure EM wavelengths we cannot see.  If your weight is taken on earth as 80kg, you have stated a value for local conditions we define as gravity acting on your mass.  But that is not a measurement of spacetime since it fulfills the criteria for a force and does not measure curvature etc. It only simply and directly measures the direct attraction effect which we already have created a word for: 

"Gravity". 

Therefore by stepping on a scale, calibrated to give a readout of an application of force, we are directly measuring what?

A) The curvature of the fabric of spacetime (by how many degrees is it curving?)

B) The interaction of our mass with another mass by the one single directly observable dynamic (mutual attraction, and the mechanism is at this point irrelevant).

If you believe you want to measure a galaxy moving away from you then you are not actually measuring dark energy. In fact you are not even measuring its recessional velocity, you are measuring its redshift. From this we deduce APPARENT magnitude. We can infer anything, but we cannot assume those inferred measurements are fact as if we have directly measured them, or solved for 1+1.

In fact, we cannot make any assumptions beyond what we observe when making a measurement, I'm sure nobody disagrees. If there is a mystery, then that is where a hypothesis is called for and not new physics, and certainly not conflating measurements for an assumed property of reality beyond what is capable of being direct measured.

Mathematics can only relate measurements to that direct observation. I can measure distance and time to calculate velocity, but I cannot place time on the same axis as distance because then what's to stop me from adding temperature, charge and pressure as well? Time is not a dimension. Each measurement has a separate unit measure and therefore is a different material property of matter.

Typically these measurements (distances, temperature, pressure etc) can be described in terms of the relationships each of the variables have with each other, in other words its using mathematics to quantify and project the material properties scientifically. This is how the various laws, theories and hypotheses have come about expressed the way they are. If your hypothesis cannot be falsified, and nothing can disprove it, its not because its such an amazing theory, its because it is something called PSEUDOSCIENCE. Measurements and observations can always conceivably falsify science, even if they do not at a particular point or ever its understood that certain results can do somin principle. When none do, that's when you know which horse to back, until you discover its limitations.

If your personal standing is impacted by an outcome, that is a conflict of interest and measures are best put in place where these conflicts are known about if you are interested in / genuinely curious about the truth.

Let me be clear, I have no problem with any of this, that is not what this post is about. Its about anything outside of this parading as science.

Spacial Dimensions

Distance measuments are possible across how many planes/axis?

1, 2 or 3 (distance, area, volume) and we are not discussing movement or measuring bodies moving in complex relationships with each other, that is something else.

Material objects must have at least how many measurement planes? 3

At most? 3

Conclusion: No more than 3 dimensions are measurable to the exclusion of each other. Nothing real is materialvwith material properties unless all 3 are measurable, but we can conceptually apply mathematics in 2 dimensions or more

Above: The origin of higher dimensions in space had its roots in "Pure Mathematics"  IE mathematics for its own sake without necessitating a practical application.

In addition to our senses we have technology.

In this respect, all of tecnological innovation and all the projected mathematics we have devised to this end only expands our horizons by degree.  We can see beyond the visable spectrum and further than once imagined, but it is still "SEEING". Reality can only be usefully explained around measurements that we make which are variable in relation to other measurements. No absolute understanding is meaningful or even possible.

Let me be clear, I understand that. But does that mean we cannot reduce our own self defined meaning of words to their definition, and uphold reason and logic as we define reason and logic? There may be no wrong or right absolutely, but there is if done absolutely in accordance with the words used meaning what we claim they do. Nothing beyond this is possible. Its maddening, but it is so.

Space, Time, Gravity and multiple dimensions:

All of science takes place in the arena of space and time. You and I are experts in our sensual interpretation of forming a causal relationship in this arena. Don't let anyone tell you that you are not because you don't understand a complex mathematical description of reality, those equations will never top your sensual abilities because you are here after billions of years of evolution because of those senses and your brain, the equations are riddled with holes and assumption. Someday they may be perfect, but not in your lifetime, you have the ability to call bullshit on crude equations.

For that purpose lets consider reality spatially, its able to broken up into three spacial dimensions for the purposes of measuring, the familiar LxBxH.  The entirety of the physical structure and presence of anything spatially are said to be it's dimensions (anything with material properties that can be interacted with through the usual laws of physics) is contained as a physical body always and only in three dimensions. 

Can you conceptualize any plane of movement needed to measure volume not covered by LxBxH?

No you cannot. I know this for a fact.

1A) These dimensions are the basis of how we deem something physically existing in the first place. Two dimensional is conceptual only, which String theorists and their 2D hologram universe need to accept, rather than project onto the surface of 3D spheres. 

1B) 4D or more isn't even conceptual, its as meaningless having 11 dimensions as it is having 11 primary colours. Good luck trying to imagine another 7 or 8 primary colours located in the visible spectrum only that are not in terms of the known primary colours. How they are mixed, through light or artistic medium may produce different routes, but all colours can be created if we have the primary colours for each.  If we keep to the basics we know that we we can only see the visable spectrum, the entirety of which is trisected by the primary colours. Another perception of another primary is NOT EVEN  conceptual so I know that nobody reading this can even offer one. What we CAN do is a thought experiment and imagine a word where only 2 primary colours exist, knowing yourself of a third, then cite the creation of such an experiment of thought as evidence that a fourth primary colour therefore exists but we can't perceive it. This is nonsense because there are only 3 primary colours in our mind available to decode frequency, already assigned accross the entire visible spectrum. To see others we must increase the spectrum of frequency we can perceive in colour, bottom line.

2A) The units of measure of each aspect/dimesion must be consistent, ie of the same scale and nature. You cannot have an object existing with dimensions of 1 meter x 3°C and 5 Volts. The materially existing objects have each set of measurements describe its own material proerties of matter. Time and space and temperature and charge and pressure and (etc) are all PROPERTIES of matter by those concepts, they are assigned to matter as its material properties. They are meaningless outside of matter and cannot themselves have material properties. What is the temperature of temperature? What is the area or volume of space? 

2B) Spacial measurements are distance measurements like centimetres or kilometres etc and can be plotted against time.  It cannot be asserted that more dimensions exist and then offer them all a place on one axis instead of it forming new axis, since there is both no evidence or imaginable possibility. Its not possible to establish the minimum measures for volume as 4, or to have 3 meter measures and one seconds measure on the X Axis, why not add a fifth, use whichever value you were planning to plot by on the Y Axis on the X Axis too? By that one act, we lose all means of describing our universe in words and numbers in any meaningful way, and lose everything we have ever communicated and nothing can ever be understood commonly.

Some say "Spacetime" isn't space or time, but a material manifold. This creates more questions than it answers.

It's very simple. We need to keep it that way, simple. The "Spacetime" hypothetical concept is already problematic by being moot, unfalsifiable and not detectable in terms of other material things by any measurable material properties. It becomes a second, theoretical definition of how things can exist but its only imaginary property is curvature, ie is geometry. Geometry is a property of 3D matter that exists with spacial dimensions. Yet even geometry is just a concept when represented mathematically to isolate 2 of the 3 dimensions. We can say "a length of time" but cannot establish how many centimetres that is, only measurements plotting against time on its familiar Y-axis in seconds, hours or years will do. We cannot point in its direction, we can only state verbally that it moves "forward" with no means of explaining bearing. 4D spacetime only really falls apart completely when it asserts a manifold, or fabric and the possibility that geometry itself can influence the laws of physics with no given mechanism. Certainly, no fourth spacial dimension "direction"  actually exists in reality that three dimensional space can be folded towards. With string theory we go to eleven, or even over thirty dimensions. Pure folly.

A mathematical deconstruction of Spacetime below:

In other words space, as it was originally understood, is purely conceptual without material properties, it cannot be acted on in any way. It cannot be warped, dilated or folded. How do you expand a concept?  I see no reason why the original meaning of a word should change based on hypothetical speculation such as dark energy or an expanding universe. At most that would warrant adding another interpretation for "space" to the dictionary to accomodate this hypothetical understanding of space. It should not replace the understanding of the concept of space and claim exclusive rights to the meaning of the word. 

This applies to "Spacetime" too. To say gravity is not a force, but rather curved spacetime, is madness. Geometry cannot impart influence to affect momentum or inertia through the laws of physics. Asking whether the universe is flat or curved is a meaningless pursuit. Three dimensional space can be neither curved nor flat. Those are principally two dimensional properties which can however be projected onto three. However, even a curved three dimensional object is curved within a three dimensional reality spatially. It should be added too that nothing real is two dimensional, just concepts are. Even the paper with geometry on it has tiny height, even if the math doesn't and uses 2D

Dimensions in Mathematics are simply degrees of freedom. They have no bearing on what is manifest in the real world.

Basic physics of motion and mechanics. 

There is a major problem with the universality of some scientific equations. It's simply decided arbitrarily in many cases when to use which equations. When to use the physics of mechanics, electrostatics, electrodynamics, or others? Each new solution creates 2 artefacts of 2 systems deemed fine for everything else. I would suggest nobody ever use relativity, orbital mechanics for accretion or formation events (only for navigation). Magnetic reconnection doesn't exist and magnetohydrodynamics doesn't work with space plasma's.

Above: The mathematical Consequence of equations for Relativity and elsewhere are different than the mathematical consequences of equations provided by Classic Physics. It is the duty of the scientific community to form hypotheses around each mathematical consequence. And then to develop theories in attempts to explain those hypothetical scenarios. Based from the mathematical consequence.

“A denial of the teaching of the alternative is a shortchanging of the new pupil of science.” – Dr. Edward Dowdye

Time is thing outside of matter and energy?

Time has no meaning outside of matter, and nor does energy which itself is not a thing but a concept. This includes light.  It would include possible undiscovered media also. How would there be a passing of time if nothing existed in the world to pass it by or to signal it passing in an illusion of a particular direction? It is an emergent property of matter just like temperature or the spacial dimensions (all of which are meaningless concepts in a universe without matter, and none are a material thing in and of themselves, their existence in a universe of nothing is fundamentally meaningless because matter gives rise to the possibility of anything happening at all, regardless of how fast (distance/time - ie the other properties of matter can be related to measure a new one) it even happens or at what temperature (excitement of the particles movement changes means that energy state of matter could be called heat and viewed as a means of transferring energy TO MATTER, now called temperature, so we are directly measuring temperature which is not the same as friction)

All talk of time dilation is therefore misplaced, whatever happens to the IE the  matter in certain conditions is being understood as happening to time itself, but time cannot happen without matter, therefore time cannot exist without matter and therefore nothing can act in any way on time and time cannot have material properties.

Theoretical Physics

Most of the astronomical disciplines of cosmology and astrophysics are based on the various field's emerging on the last two centuries in theoretical physics. These days it's seldom qualified that, for example when detecting bright radio bursts in X-Ray, that this is interpreted by the standard cosmological model as a black hole. It's simply states "A black hole was detected".  These hypotheses build to several layers deep, with each new layer concluding from the later beneath it. Many of these layers stem from the basic misrepresentations of space, time, energy, matter, mass and gravity. It's a house of cards and cosmology is built that way.

Strung-out theorist?

Theoretical physics,  as Michio Kaku explains above, does not use the scientific method, this is widely misunderstood by many to criticize sober classical physics and champion theoretical physics citing its use of the scientific method. Classical physics was much more attached to rigorously adhering to this method. Instead, theoretical physics uses the oxymoron term "theoretical evidence", principally mathematics because none of its speculation will ever be seen and there will never be any way most of it can ever be falsified. It's not based on any engineering and no industries use its principles in manufacturing or even R&D

A FEW CLARIFICATIONS OF CONTEXT OF USE OF CERTAIN TERMS.

This is to avoid mind numbing squabbles of the meaning of words. Language is dynamic and the same word can be used in many ways even to the point of metaphor. If a word is recognised in major dictionaries, its range of context is always given. If you are looking such things up you will probably find you may be in some form of denial.

THERE IS NO TIME DILATION IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE UNDER ELECTRODYNAMICS OF GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS!

Hypothesis: Used to cite a formal hypothesis and also a Hypothetical Scenario 
Theory: Used to refer to both a formal theory as well as an Explanation of Hypothetical Scenario
Evidence: Data Collected in support of given scenario.
Proof: Mathematical solutions to equations that work out conceptually.

Prove: Informally used to describe the act of using mutually agreed on evidence to establish something material.