While alchemists often understood chrysopoeia as a metaphor for a mystical, or religious process, some practitioners adopted a literal interpretation, and tried to make gold through physical experiment. The impossibility of the metallic transmutation had been debated amongst alchemists, philosophers and scientists since the Middle Ages. There are some noted names in the history of science that were in some or other way seduced by the charms of alchemy, most notably Isaac Newton. These days the role of alchemy in the scientific landscape is practically nonexistent and its been relegated for other uses and seeks to distance itself from the quest for the philosophers stone.
The story with biological transmutation is another story entirely, and in some cases transmutation was effectively proven beyond reasonable doubt, but failure to explain how this came to be meant that the results failed get the fanfare one would expect. The origins go as far back as 1634.
Jan Baptist van Helmont was actually arrested by agents of the Spanish Inquisition for the crime of studying plants and other phenomena. While under house arrest, he started to consider how plants grew. The prevailing theory at the time was that plants grew by eating soil, and van Helmont devised a clever investigation to test this idea.
He weighed a willow tree and weighed dry soil. He planted the tree, watered it and then left it for 5 years. He then re-weighed the tree, which had increased in mass by over 12 stone. He dried the soil and weighed it, showing that the soil was almost the same mass.
This may not prove transmutation but it was the first experiment to show that from water, trace minerals and air plants could make all the material for growth.
A history of experimental science seeking to find biological transmutation in nature..
The above clip gives a detailed synopsis of four centuries findings from the more interesting experiments in this Feild.
Corentin Louis Kervran (3 March 1901 – 2 February 1983)
Kervran was a renowned French scientist. He received a degree as an engineer in 1925. In World War II he was part of the French Resistance.
Kervran proposed that nuclear transmutation occurs in living organisms, which he called "biological transmutation".[3] He made this claim after doing an experiment with chickens where they were generating calcium in their egg shells while there was no calcium in their food or soil. He had no known scientific explanation for it. Such transmutations are not possible according to mainstream physics, chemistry and biology. Proponents of biological transmutations fall outside mainstream physics and are not part of the scientific discourse even though nobody was able to find flaw with his results.
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) are a controversial topic at Mitsubishi, constantly gaining and losing the advantage over detractors, it appears there is something to pursue and this space should be watched.
The SAFIRE Project started as a proof of concept designed to test the Electric Sun model, with resounding success. It picked up large amounts of funding since then after it was found to generate power USING nuclear waste and creating harmless byproduct. Even if it's efficiency doesn't improve, remediation of nuclear waste is itself a trillion dollar industry. There was another finding of interest.
In the plasma reactor the anode was analysed with EDAX after an energy producing run. The next two images highlight the elements that were not present at the beginning of the run.
Showing new elements found on the anode. These elements were not present before the experiment.
Showing new elements found on the anode. These elements were not present before the experiment.
Additional evidence for transmutation comes from optical spectroscopy. For reference, below is the spectrum from a discharge not encouraging transmutation - showing primarily the Hydrogen atmosphere.
Optical spectrum from discharge in a Hydrogen atmosphere.
The next figure shows the spectrum of the discharge around the anode during the energy-producing run, with three areas highlighted. Spectroscopy under complex conditions is as much an art as a science, since any one line can be assigned to more than one element and energy level. One of the unique signatures of the metal Manganese is the three triplets circled below. It is possible that instead of Manganese, we are seeing multiple other elements in just the right energy levels, but that is statistically extremely less likely than the presence of Manganese. The alloy used for the anode contained no Manganese. It is also notable that the relative intensities of the nine Manganese lines indicate up to 25eV energy states, considerably higher than the energy levels in the Hydrogen atmosphere.
Optical spectrum during plasma discharge. The blue ovals highlight the lines attributed to Manganese. Manganese was not present in the chamber before the discharge.
The table below shows the elements identified that were not in the chamber before the experiment.
Period Table highlighting the new elements found in the chamber.
OTHER INTERESTING OR SPECULATIVE CLAIMS
Marc LeClair, of Nanospire, Inc, built a cavitation device in his garage for a mere $250.00 that generated nuclear radiation and reportedly even formed a type of diamond (using only water). He and his partner were severely radiation poisoned for more than a year, lost their hair and almost died.
A man named Dr. Paul Brown developed a radioactive cell that could turn the half life of a nuclear material into a battery. Strontium 90 has a half-life of 28 years… Which means you would have a battery working at a constant for 28 years before it loses half of its power
Dr. Brown figured out a way to extract 7500 W from 1 gram of strontium 90.
Current nuclear theory says you can only extract 0.063 W from the same gram. Dr. Brown figured out a way to extract 100,000 times more energy.
He was murdered just before his company NuCell went on the stock market in 2001.
The title picture above may be considered shocking to some. It outlines what the concepts of the primary sub-atomic particles. However in electrical engineering all sorts of equations are based on them, as is most of the industry on earth. Electrons and protons may or may not be particles in the way we understand it. Perhaps they are something else entirely. Perhaps they are something so analogous to them that the theory, despite not necessarily being truthful, is useful. The truth is that it becomes stranger and stranger. See the picture below.
But that is nothing, the entire Feild of Quantum Mechanics, not including QED so much, is probalistic/ Statistical in nature. I am assured that it can be useful even though not necessarily truthful, unless used in a disengenuos way as is becoming more of a habit in recent times.
Coincidence: Does it happen?
Arnold Sommerfeld’s development of Bohr’s model. Sommerfeld updated the model by making the electron orbits elliptical and adjusting them in accordance with Einstein’s theory of relativity. This all seemed more realistic than Bohr’s simple model at the time.
Today even those who regard electrons as particles tend to now suspect that electrons don’t really orbit the nucleus at all. Modern quantum mechanics says that electrons don’t even occupy an exact position at an exact time. This seems unlikely to be truthful either, certainly even if it were it condemns quantum mechanics to never be scalable, making hopes of a unified Theory on other scales slim to none.
Yet, in 1916, Sommerfeld used his model as the basis for an equation that correctly describes the detailed pattern of colours of light absorbed and emitted by hydrogen. This equation is exactly the same as the one derived by Paul Dirac in 1928 using the modern theory of relativistic quantum mechanics.
Is anything real? That question can remain in the realms of Metaphysics or Philosophy in my opinion. I am in favour of keeping science as prosaic as possible. What can we measure? What can we quantify? Can we establish relationships between the variables? By which degrees of freedom?
I have nothing against using models or using theory to back up a hypothesis or a mathematical proof to try and resolve it. These are fantastic tools for describing, projecting and expanding upon what we can observe and measure in experiments and develop in engineering or industry.
I do think it's important to draw the line at considering the use of some of these tools as hard evidence, or even as solid data. This abuse has been most serious is branches of theoretical physics as with Relativity and String Theory or some of the uses of "information" as a principal in science. The term "Theoretical Evidence" is an oxymoron (like "Military Intelligence") and is usually a good indication that things are about to go awry.
This post was written to clarify my position (That I am not against models in principle) and after some great feedback I recieved following THIS POST.
It's also my attempt to understand where to draw the line on what is useful and where we should exercise caution in what we considered settled before shutting the door on new evidence or taking an arrogant tone when standing in defense of "Settled Science" the way the Church defended it's position in the face of a challenge by Galileo.
Success of Cosmology: 4.6% - Success of Climatology: 1.47%
PART 1: COSMOLOGY
Cosmology has only 1 model that is sanctioned by the establishment, the LAMBDA-CDM (^CDM or "cold dark matter") model more commonly referred to as the standard cosmological model. The establishment which has a monopoly on public funding, grant & research and the education curriculum does not teach or allow competing models (such as Plasma Cosmology which accounts for 100% of the observable universe) into universities or to bid for non-private funding of R&D projects. Moreover, this model rejects such things as the electromagnetic influence of pervasive cosmic magnetic fields on the cosmic web, formation of galaxies and orbital mechanics of solar systems.
It also asserts that the universe is expanding from a big bang 13.8 billion years ago. When applied to the supposed rate of expansion used by the model from the big bang the shortcoming variable in theory vs observation is given the name "Dark Energy". When applied to the rotational curve of galaxies under the called for criteria of the ^CDM model, that gravity drives galactic rotation, the variable given for shortcoming in theory vs observation is called "Dark Matter".
The rate of success when reconciling the standard model with observable matter and supposed movement of that matter is low (the concept "space" proposed as being a material fabric or manifold both causing gravity, somehow, using pure geometry and expanding due to unseen factors). It's reconciliation of prediction vs observation is 4.6%...
In other words
It is a true statement to say: Only 4.6% of the universe is accounted for based on predictions of the standard model being reconciled with observation.
Below: Public understanding /Google trajectory.
Below: Explanation of failure of the big bang model in terms of predicting light elements, rate of expansion etc
The big bang can be seen in the broader context of the LAMBDA-CDM CONCORDANCE model, the standard cosmological model, where LAMBDA (^) can be viewed as dark energy basically by the model's interpretation, and (CDM) as dark matter.
This model relies heavily on General Relativity, which is falsely upheld as being well tested, but its tested mathematically within the failed model so we must conclude that since there is no engineering or industry based on GR and the only instance of it widely regarded, the GPS system, being a widespread myth (categorical fact!). This means GR must in turn be viewed as a failure since its only evidenced theoretically, not experimentally, as a tool of a failed model. No Evidence for or possible test for the falsifiability of a fabric of spacetime is ever expected. Direct evidence for and indeed direct measurements, the gold standard of science, are easily attainable for gravity as a force, using mutual attraction.
Now science is in many ways doing very well. Science which has engineering, technology and industry based on its principles had extremely high standards of precision and accuracy. This includes some areas of medicine but not others as with pharmaceutical and vaccine R&D but this is explained by profit incentive, not by scientific failure.
What we find is that in cases where predictive success, models, mathematical projections and theoretical physics is based on the oxymoron "Strong theoretical evidence" then science doesn't apply. Only genuine evidence is the basis can standards and accuracy can be looked at. Science is either evidence based, or theoretical, it can't be both! One can be turned into the other once evidenced by factors that are DIRECTLY MEASURABLE.
A good case in point is NASA. NASA is publicly funded so should fall into all the traps those disciplines I just mentioned didn't, right? Well NASA does fall into the trap, its missions ride the coat tails in many ways of brilliant engineering, not cosmology. This is thanks not just to the contractors but to the brilliant Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL). In addition, NASA was obliged to throw its hat into the climate issue, and the NASA GISS - Climate (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies / Climate Div.) was formed. So, NASA has fingers in both pots and has pockets of brilliance and sadly a big fat political, bureaucratic underbelly.
Ironically, even NASA of old condemns NASA today. NASA astronauts from the days when NASA was closer to the top of its game and far better funded, took aim at the increasing politicization of the organization. They blasted the agency for its obligation to capitulate to the unscientific stance on the side claiming man-made CO2 is producing a catastrophic effect on climate. as I will cover in part 2 below.
Elsewhere, notoriously, there are problems with reproducibility. It's a serious problem. There are also problems and widespread discontent with the peer review process, political problems of conformity, lack of tolerance to dissent or skepticism, problems of institutionalized establishment and tenure, massive pressure to access funding and so forth. It's clear that the blame cannot be laid purely on the shoulders of scientists who have found these pressures thrust onto their shoulders. They find themselves trapped in the system. Read about it here in my article The Crises Of Science.
The problem is so bad that from time-to-time mainstream consensus science has been seriously looking making a case for doing away with one of the core principles of the scientific method, the principle of Falsifiability. In order to falsify the hypothesis "All swans are white" it doesn't matter how many white swans you find; you only need find one black swan. It's self-evident why it's the most important principle of the scientific method. But all kinds of creative reasons by bureaucrats parading as scientists, looking to cut corners, are coming up with, such as:
Or worse, some have altogether abandoned the scientific method entirely, so far are they up their own asses they couldn't be bothered and don't know anything about the history of why it's there. Unsurprisingly this comes from areas which produce no useful results or success, such as String Theory, as Michio Kaku confesses below:
The final problem is one of data fraud due to political pressure. The historical data is being massaged to fit the narrative and current measurements are tweaked to hide the fact that they have nothing. I write about it here with evidence.
Branch of science concerned with heat and it's associated relationships to a system through variables like temperature and pressure.
Entropy:
A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases with time.
Why would this be an assumption, there is so much evidence for it? To be honest it is not an assumption the assumption comes in somewhere else, through astronomy, where heat and energy are given origins. That frames the second law.
It's actually quite unusual for me to place one of the laws of thermodynamics in this series. Usually I reserve this space for the clear cases of layered assumptions stemming from the highly flawed LAMBDA-CDM Cosmology model, the standard model which is so obviously flawed that it's fated to produce ever increasing sanctioned lunacy parading as science as time goes on.
The longer it (the standard model) survives in the face of incoming evidence, the more bizarre the science will become trying to interpret incoming data through the lense of a model which completely ignores the most influential force in nature, and tries to use the weakest force, gravity, to explain everything. I see it as I would if a sports journalist tried to build a career covering the heavyweight boxing division without ever mentioning boxing ability, hand-speed, power or fitness and instead released a write up of every title bout through the prism of how a fighters singing skills and colour of their trunks decided the outcome, especially when a KO is involved.
However, there is a connection to the assumption saturated standard model. That connection lies in the assumption of the creation miracle known as "The Big Bang" which leads to the eventual heat death of the universe. With these parameters it's pre-ordained that all energy eventually degrades to unusable, low grade forms. This would have an obvious affect on how we interpret the degrading of energy and orderliness from the misunderstood assumption of radiation from thermonuclear fusion core stars to discarded waste on planets, moons and asteroids.
But if this is not the case, if, as outlined in this post, ionised plasma which forms the cosmic web and guides the formation of stars in filaments, and the rotation of galaxies, is self organising with its own engines of charge seperation in plasmoids, then we need a re-think.
Does this mean that entropy always increases? Perhaps so, or at least it does in all lower orders of magnitude. To be certain it does so fundamentally I don't believe we can be so sure. This is immediately thrust into question if the big bang is brought into question as I did in this post.
I'll leave it to you to decide since I don't reckon I have the technical pedigree to reach a conclusion, but we all have the right to (and should) ask questions.
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.)
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.
Story #1: How COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Are Rigged
https://bit.ly/3ecZiev
Singapore Halts Dosing of Two Flu Shots After 59 Deaths in South Korea
https://bit.ly/3jDMSxx
Japan Gov't OKs Bill to Offer Free Coronavirus Vaccines
https://bit.ly/2Jhqhdy
Danish Newspaper Reveals Largest Study On Masks Rejected By Three Medical Journals
https://bit.ly/37OCaBM
That Mask Is Giving You Lung Cancer
https://bit.ly/3jLEr3j
FDA Approves Gilead's Remdesivir Despite Data Showing Drug Doesn't Work
https://bit.ly/2Jg0aUm
Some COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates May Make People More Vulnerable to HIV
https://bit.ly/3oDjRpm
South Korean Authorities Stick To Flu Vaccine Plan After Deaths Rise To 48
https://bit.ly/37WeDiF
Deaths In South Korea After Flu Vaccinations Shouldn't Stop Flu Shot Campaigns
https://bit.ly/34EKYIK
Time Magazine Replaces Logo With Plea to 'Vote'
https://bit.ly/35FQEBy
Story #2: The Great Financial Reset - IMF Managing Director Calls for a 'New Bretton Woods Moment'
https://bit.ly/34CTlEr
A New Bretton Woods Moment By Kristalina Georgieva, IMF Managing Director
https://bit.ly/3jxoyNC
Cross-Border Payment—A Vision for the Future
https://bit.ly/3jDHfPM
Story #3: ‘The Purge’ Producers ‘Keep America Great’ Inside the Trump Admin
https://bit.ly/31PZpYq
Hiltzik Strategies
https://bit.ly/31TGf3T
Jared Kushner Hires Hollywood Horror Film Publicist Behind ‘The Purge’ to Head PR For New White House Office
http://dailym.ai/3kEFG5x
Trump Adviser Hope Hicks Tests Positive for Coronavirus
https://bit.ly/3jDLISr
Biden, 5 Supreme Court Justices Attend Controversial “Red Mass” (Oct. 3, 2010)
https://cnn.it/31QI95x
Film, Literature and the New World Order: ‘The Purge: Election Year’
https://bit.ly/2Jkbkrj
Bob Murphy Analyzes “The Hunt” and “The Purge” Movies as an Anarchist
https://bit.ly/3mwKA4T
