Originally Posted By: Orac

There are ONLY 3 proposals for space

Newton: Absolute space and time.

Mach: The reference frame comes from the distribution of matter in the universe.

Einstein: There is no reference frame.


We have a massive number of observations Newtons absolute space and time is shown by many observations to be falsified. Mach has got some problems but it is not definitively been falsified.

We scientifically test these very basic tennants here is a summary of the results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameterized_post-Newtonian_formalism)

The answer is clear THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE SPACE AND TIME either of the other two options or create a new one.

Finiter wants an absolute space and time and that violates all the observational data so that alone kills the theory.

But apparently you can be selective about what observations you accept because we just throw GR and QM out even though they match observation because we don't like them.

SORRY THAT IS NOT SCIENCE ... If you want that then this thread needs to move to not quite science area.


Newtons equations for gravity requires correction when you consider two bodies moving 'independently' of each other (The equation is valid only when the two bodies remain relatively at rest). However in my opinion, such a correction is possible without resorting to the concept of space-time. First, you have use a variable G (proportional to their speeds)for each of the bodies, and then use the geometric mean of the constants. Secondly, you have to add a negative factor that represents the velocity component that acts against the force. So the net equation gets the form, (GG')^(1/2)x MM' /d^2 - (M'v^2)/d. I have not verified whether this equation will be in conformity with that of alternate equations suggested for approximations based on GR.

One thing that I don't agree with you is the argument that 'the concept of absolute space and time has been falsified'. It has 'never' been falsified. The Wikipedia reference you have given deals with gravity only. From that we cannot conclude that space and time are not absolute. There have only been 'doubts' regarding the nature of space and time. The explanations based on GR and QM (as pointed out by you) match observations. But that does not mean there cannot be other explanations, especially when the two are at loggerheads.

So my argument is that the concept of absolute space and time does not 'by itself' violate any observational data, and so that cannot be a case against my theory.