Before replying to your arguments, let me express my thanks to you. You are taking so much pains to point out the relevant articles (in the Wikipedia), which otherwise I would have missed. It took me more than 10 years for my research, which was totally independent; I have no institutional backing. When it appeared to me that my work reached its logical end, I published it in the form of a book. I have named my theory as 'Finiteness Theory'. It can be stated as follows: "The universe is matter in its finite form". Here, 'matter' is something made up of infinitely small particles (I call them 'photons'), which have a fixed mass, a fixed volume and a fixed energy,(mc^2)/2. The 'finite form' is a pulsating system of 'masses of atoms/molecules'. I claim that my theory is logical and can explain nearly all things. However, the fact is that my claims have not been verified by anybody, and I am indeed not sure that I haven't gone wrong any where. So I will argue 'as best as I can' to defend 'my findings'.

Originally Posted By: Orac

What you have written in that statement is implicitly WRONG it has been falsified over and over again.

So even back in Newton's day absolute space was completely debunked you have to add in non-sensical fiction force to hold everything together

So absolute space was dead and buried in the 17th century unless your happy to randomly add in fictional forces just to make the maths work which was the status until Einstein and probably what you were taught at school by sounds.

The question moreover was there ever a time absolute space was ever believed by anyone other than a layman and Newton.

So in your theory how do the random fictional forces come about ... remember they definitely are not real because you can always find a reference frame where the forces are not necessary to explain the physics.


I would like to point out that the articles (you have referred to) cast doubts regarding the nature of space; it can even be regarded as 'serious doubts', but not more than that. Absolute space may not be a necessity even for classical mechanics; so it is not regarded as serious problem (this is what I understand from that articles). However, none of the articles explicitly denies absolute space. So it is still an unresolved problem.

I think you are correct in pointing out that only laymen and Newton considered the space to be absolute. Consider me also as a layman, and I am with Newton.

Now, regarding fictional forces, I think (based on my theory), that there is no centrifugal force as such. This may be an error in Newtonian mechanics. If at all any force is created by the circular motion of a body in absolute space, it is not the centrifugal force. In my theory, force is created due to the circular motion of fundamental particles 'only', and this force is centripetal and real, and it is this force that we call 'gravity'.

In the case of a body orbiting in the gravitational field of another, I suggest a correction to the Newton's equation (this was mentioned earlier). Here the equation becomes F= (GMm/d^2) - (mv^2)/2. So the actual force is (mv^2)/2, and thus the gravitational force is equal to the kinetic energy. The kinetic energy can be regarded as a pseudo force (a force that has no field). Thus the two forces remain balanced. Here, there is no centrifugal force; the pseudo force is kinetic energy itself, and so there is no need to invoke a non-existing force for the sake of mathematical validity.

Now, it may be noted that the new equation used also gives rise to the relation GMm/d = mv^2. So I would say that in spite of the error in the Newton's equation for calculating force, we got correct results because Newtonian mechanics invoked a non-existing force, which in itself was another error; the two errors just got cancelled, and we got correct results. Thus by removing the two errors simultaenously, my theory solves the problem regarding the absolute nature of space (it removes the fictional force)

Last edited by finiter; 10/12/11 05:00 PM.