The 20th century was a time of explosive scientific advancement. There were many advances in the quality of scientific observations. An improved understanding was required of the mechanics behind those observations. Analysis of the observations demonstrated that Classical Mechanics was not complete. Two notable means exist to reconcile the differences between prediction and observation.
Among the notable advances was the discovery of special and general relativity, as described in the book by Albert Einstein:
Relativity: The Special and the General Theory.
Einstein described and developed a new way to perceive
existence, which involved abstract mathematics to produce predictions that appeared
to match the new observations. Many classical notions were abandoned,
replaced with new  abstract  understandings, including a new
abstraction, described by Einstein as: spacetime.
Einstein presumes the constancy of the speed of light to all observers, and
that time is actually a 4^{th} dimension of reality.
In comparison, another notable advance, supported
by this author, is the work of physicist Paul Marmet,
who chose to correct Classical Mechanics, thereby maintaining the classical
perspective of realism as presented by
Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics.
Marmet takes the more
conservative approach than Einstein, retaining the classical view of space and
time, while acknowledging the limitations of
This paper employs Objectivist Epistemology to examine the objective nature of space, time, and matter in physics. The analysis compares the steps taken, and conclusions made by Einstein and Marmet, thereby illuminating the conflicting premises behind the two opposing stances as to the nature of time, space, and matter, and the nature of the role of physics in describing reality. This leads to a clearer understanding of the nature and workings of our universe, which is the proper role of science, to provide as clear and accurate an understanding of reality, as is humanly possible.
Since the dawn of human history Man has wondered about time, and about space. Indeed, Man must comprehend reality as a means to survival itself. It has often been said, “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” Many men have contributed to our current understanding, drawn from works as early as the ancient Greeks, and as recent as the improved Classical Mechanics of Paul Marmet. And so it is the nature of science that we grow and improve our understandings, as it is true often enough, that with each new insight we make, it is that we stand on the shoulders of the giants who came before.
Space, time, and matter are simple abstractions. Space is space. Time is time. Matter is matter. A is A. Spacetime must conform to the simple abstractions upon which it is based: the nature of space and the nature of time. Time is not space. Space is not time. Mathematically, one can produce an equation which states: space = time, or time = space. However, mathematics is the manipulation of numbers such that the mathematics can be internally consistent, yet in reality maintain contradictions. The computations might produce predictions that match observations in a numeric sense, yet, that do not imply a description of physical reality, coherent, or otherwise.
Quoting
An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e. reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.
The first and
primary axiomatic concepts are “existence,” “identity”
(which is a corollary of existence), and “consciousness.”
One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot
analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as
such. These are – irreducible – primaries. (An attempt to
“prove” them is selfcontradictory: it is an attempt to
“prove” existence by means of nonexistence, and consciousness by
means of unconsciousness.)” End Quote (
(Reference: Introduction
to Objectivist Epistemology, Chapter 6)
Several axiomatic concepts are involved in this analysis. Space, time, and matter, in this context, are all axiomatic. We need not describe time, nor space, nor matter, in terms of something else. For instance, neither time, nor space requires light.
Quoting Rand: “Axiom
An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any
further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily
contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it
or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that
they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny
it.” End Quote (
(Reference: The Ayn Rand Lexicon)
Spacetime is a compound abstraction. Any valid compound abstraction refers back to (relates to) the simple concepts that are its reference to reality, as its function is to form a more complete description of a complex but real relationship. Compound abstractions inherit the attributes and aspects of the simpler concepts from which they derive. Spacetime is not an exception. Both time and space exist as simple abstractions: referring directly to physical reality. These simple concepts are derived directly from both experience and direct observations. In fact, time and space are axiomatic concepts. Therefore, space and time place constraints on the meaning and scope of spacetime that are inescapable, in spite of coherent mathematics.
The following axioms and principles are proposed and defended:
The Principle of Realism: 
Reality exists, independent of observation. 
The Principle of Relativity: 
Reality exists, by means of observation. 
The Axiom of Space: 
Space is anywhere, and everywhere. 
The Axiom of Time: 
Time is everywhere in the present, anywhere it is measured. 
The Axiom of Matter: 
Matter matters. 
Mass/Energy Conservation: 
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. 
The Principle of Mechanics: 
Real actions have real causes, and real effects. 
Quoting
…
Epistemologically, the formation of axiomatic concepts is an act of abstraction, a selective focusing on and mental isolation of metaphysical fundamentals; but, metaphysically, it is an act of integration – the widest integration possible to man: it unites and embraces the total of his experience.
…
Since axiomatic concepts refer to facts of reality and are not a matter of “faith” or of man’s arbitrary choice, there is a way to ascertain whether a given concept is axiomatic, or not: one ascertains it by observing the fact that an axiomatic concept cannot be escaped, that it is implicit in all knowledge, that it has to be accepted and used even in the process of any attempt to deny it.
…
It is axiomatic concepts that
identify the precondition of knowledge: the distinction between existence and consciousness,
between reality and the awareness of reality, between the object and the
subject of cognition. Axiomatic concepts are the foundation of objectivity.”
End Quote (
(Reference:
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Chapter 6)
The axioms of time, space and matter are corollaries of existence. Please refer to the case studies attached at the end of this paper for an indepth discussion of their derivation.
<Top>
The Cosmological Principle (a k a The
Primacy of Existence):
(Spatial)
The Universe, as observed from any place, in every direction looks and behaves
roughly the same.
(Temporal)
The Universe is observed today roughly as it always has been and roughly as it
always will be.
Anywhere =
a place from which one measures distance and direction.
Everywhere =
all distances and directions from anywhere.
Cosmological Horizon =
the distance beyond which observations cannot reach.
Space is everywhere. This simple
statement of direct observation and experience is irrefutable. Space is –
everywhere. It defines everywhere in the Universe with no points
excluded.
Space
is directly observed and experienced.
The human body takes up space. The planets, stars, and galaxies take up
space. There is space inside of molecules
and atoms. Space is over you, under you, around you, inside you, outside you,
here, there, anywhere, and everywhere.
In this context, the Universe is a group
abstraction, grouping all the matter in the Universe, for
our own convenience and efficiency. This grouping is justified via the axiom of
matter. (Matter matters). This does
NOT suggest the Universe is a “rigid body” with its own
“center of gravity.”
If there exists a center of gravity (to the Universe
itself), then there exists an actual center (to the Universe itself),
and at some distance from that actual center, IN ALL DIRECTIONS, there exists a
real and actual boundary, and a point where the Universe ceases to exist.
No such boundary has ever
been shown or discovered. To argue such a contradiction, one must argue a
difference between “space inside of the Universe,” and notspace,
or “space outside of the Universe.” However much space one concludes the
Universe is taking up, there always exists a much
larger space of notspace, surrounding the space being considered as space.
The boundary that actually exists
with empirical support (Rudnicki, Arp
et al.), the cosmological horizon, is twofold in nature. First there are limits to human tools of
observation. There exists distances
beyond which no telescope, or other instrument can reach. Improvements in technology continue to
occur. Therefore the limits of our observational capability continue to expand,
yet, there will always exist that boundary that is the
limits of observations. Second,
there exists a distance beyond which the sources have not and cannot reach us.
These boundaries, taken together, form the contemporary concept of the
cosmological horizon.
The cosmological horizon divides the Universe, for each
and every observer, into two parts: a portion that is accessible to
observation, and a portion that is not accessible to observation.
Photo courtesy NASA and the ACS science team
This NASA illustration – compares the camera quality and resolution of Hubble’s Wide Field Planetary Camera (WFPC) vs. The Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS). The ACS covers twice the area, has twice the sharpness, and is up to five times more sensitive to light than its earlier counterpart, the WFPC.
Space defines and describes a potential – everywhere .
Space consists of three dimensions: length, width, and height. Space is located through a process of abstraction in which we relate the objects in space to each other, in space. Objects occupy space, taking up length, width, and height, and objects relate to each other, and to space, according to the relationships of – distance – and – direction . Geometry is the study of shape, involving these special – spatial – relationships.
How do we know there are only three dimensions, and not 4, 10, 11, or even 26 dimensions? The answer is found in the direct observation of distances and directions. With three dimensions, we account for every distance and every direction. All of space is described. We can therefore locate – everywhere and anywhere – from  anywhere and everywhere . There is – nowhere – left to describe!
Space defines and describes a particular anywhere within a potential everywhere.
The
center of everywhere is anywhere.
The center of such an infinity of points is any arbitrary point, and space will be the same from each and every center, called, the origin, identified as space point (0,0,0) chosen arbitrarily.
The geometries of objects can be described in space, only in relation to a chosen center.
The origin is overlaid onto a three
dimensional grid to relate points in space by distance and direction, from the
origin, to any and all other points, according to the context of the
measurements.
Origin (Space Point (0,0,0))
Octant 1: +x, +y, +z. Octant
5: x,
+y, +z.
Octant 2: +x, +y, z. Octant
6: x,
+y, z.
Octant 3: +x, y, +z. Octant
7: x,
y, +z.
Octant
4: +x,
y, z. Octant
8: x,
y, z.
It can be shown that mathematics is rigorously and internally consistent. Such internal consistency, however, does not require any external validation. In fact, external validation of mathematics often admits absurdity in reality. Take, for example, imaginary numbers. There is no such number as the  square root of minus one . These concepts are labeled  imaginary – precisely because they have no real existence. Nonetheless, they exist in the context of mathematical models, and serve a useful function toward making useful predictions about reality. Imaginary numbers are common in calculations involving electricity.
Additional  imaginary  dimensions are clearly mathematically feasible. There is no limit to the number of dimensions that one can define mathematically. Yet, there exists no physical reference to reality. Imaginary dimensions retain mathematical properties, just as imaginary numbers do, but refer to nothing real, in the physical sense.
Imaginary dimensions exist only in the context of mathematical processes.
The Principle of Realism: 
Reality exists, independent of observation. 
Mass/Energy Conservation: 
Matter cannot be created
or destroyed, only transformed. 
The Principle of
Mechanics: 
Real actions have real causes, and real effects. 
Existence exists, as observed.
In relating  rigid bodies  to one another using relativity alone, as Einstein did, implies a different reality for EACH and EVERY observer, at least as is with respect to EACH and EVERY frame of reference. Very early in Einstein's book (Chapter 3, Space and Time in Classical Mechanics) the demonstration of this change in context (from realism to relativity) becomes apparent:
Quoting Einstein: I
stand at the window of a railway carriage, which is traveling uniformly, and I
drop a stone on the embankment, without throwing it. Then, disregarding
the influence of the air resistance, I see the stone descend in a straight
line. A pedestrian who observes the misdeed from the footpath notices that the
stone falls to earth in a parabolic curve. I now ask: do the
"positions" traversed by the stone lie "in reality" on a
straight line or on a parabola? Moreover, what is meant here by "motion in
space"?  ENDQUOTE (Albert Einstein)
Einstein proceeds to produce two separate
realities, one for the passenger, and one for pedestrian. Einstein
claims: BOTH realities are "equally true".
1. The passenger’s reality: The stone travels straight down.
2. The pedestrian’s reality: The stone traverses a parabolic curve.
Wait a minute!!!!! There's only one stone!
The fact is that Einstein has dropped the context of  frame within frame  motion. He implies the stone belongs to the moving frame, just as the stone belongs to the stationary frame. Via the Principle of Realism, the stone has  an existence independent of observation . In Einstein's example, the stone transitions between the two frames of reference. Prior to its release, the stone is under the influence of the moving frame because the passenger in the moving railcar is carrying the stone. Upon release, the stone begins to lose the energy attributed to the motion of the car, even as it gains momentum from the gravity of Earth,  which has been pulling down on the stone, the railcar, and the moving observer throughout the exercise . The ACTUAL stone, takes an ACTUAL curved path, due to both the lateral force of the railcar, and the downward force of gravity acting upon the stone, both at once. This is clearly  frame within frame  motion. In this example, the stationary frame contains the motions, and the stationary frame is the preferred frame in the classic sense. By properly considering each and every motion of each and every rigid body involved in the exercise, simple classical mechanics provides the real description and interpretation, of the motions of the objects involved.
The background of Euclidian space is not meant to be the end of it. It is the start of further refinements. Euclidian space is the infinite potential of distance and direction. Matter matters. Essential to relativity, is the idea of  rigid bodies  and  curved space . Einstein presumes matter systems when placing origins. What this means is that relativity uses a nonEuclidian approach to configure the points in terms of curves instead of lines,  outward from respect to a SPECIFIC origin – which is the center of a matter system. In both perspectives, Euclidian or nonEuclidian, it is the same space that is being configured.
The common  relativistic 
vernacular is: SPACE CURVES IN THE PRESENCE OF MATTER.
The implied corollary becomes: IN THE ABSENCE OF MATTER, SPACE IS EUCLIDIAN.
Matter matters: In the absence of matter,
there simply isn’t anything to relate.
The Cosmological Principle
(a k a The Primacy of Existence):
(Spatial) The Universe, as observed from any
place, in every direction looks and behaves roughly the same.
(Temporal) The Universe is observed today
roughly as it always has been and roughly as it always will be.



Clocks  measure  time. It is true
that due to the fact of length contraction, there is a corresponding change to
atomic resonance and frequencies with respect to gravitational potentials and
accelerations. Atomic clocks run at different rates. Pendulums swing at
different rates. Mechanical gears change their ratios.
Q: How does that slow or speed up time?
A: It doesn't affect time at all. It creates an error (distortion) of measure.
Einstein presumes the constancy of light, using it as a standard of measure.
Einstein brings up the issue of "simultaneity." He uses the example of two lightning strikes, observers at a train embankment, and observers on a train. Einstein has built a classic "straw man."
Lightning is a wellunderstood EVENT. When the lightning strike occurs in REAL TIME, several EFFECTS are created in the same instant.
1) A lightning flash occurs in the atmosphere.
2) A thunderous sound wave is created as the air is disturbed.
It is proper to conclude that the lightning flashes  and the accompanying
thunder  are created together. These – events – are
created simultaneously. Yet, it is also clear that one will observe the
light long before one ever hears the thunder. The thunder is simply
lagging behind the light. The lag increases over distance. This occurs simply
because sound travels slower than light.
<Top> <Space> <Matter> <Time> <Summary>
Case Study: Light Deflection by Sun
Case Study: Perihelion of Mercury
Case Study: Contradicted Equivalence
Case Study: The Flat Universe
Case Study: The Sagnac Effect
Case Study: Invalidating Relativity
<Top> <Space> <Matter> <Time> <Summary> <Case Study>
1. Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology 
Ayn Rand 
Axioms/Epistemology 
2. The Elements 

Geometry 
3. The Works of Galileo Galilei 
Galileo 
Relativity/Universal Time 
Sir Isaac Newton 
Motion/Gravity 

5. Relativity: The Special and the General Theory 
Albert Einstein 
Relativity/Gravity/Relative Time 
6. The Big Bang Never Happened 
Eric J. Lerner 
Plasma Cosmology 
7. The Cult of the Big Bang: Was There a Bang? 
William Mitchell 
Refutation of Big Bang 
8. Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science 
Halton Arp 
Hubble Shift/Astronomy 
Paul Marmet 
Defending the Classical Approach 

10. A Brief History of Time 
Stephen Hawking 
The Mind Creating Reality 
11. Beyond Einstein 
Michio Kaku 
More Mind Creates Reality 
<Top> <Space> <Matter> <Time> <Summary> <Case Study> <Bibliography> <Other Links> <Testimonials>
1. Hannes Alfven 

2. Halton Arp 
http://www.haltonarp.com/ 
3. Sir Fred Hoyle 

4. Chandra Wickramasinghe 

5. 

6. Galileo Galilei 

7. Sir Isaac Newton 

8. Albert Einstein 

9. Paul Marmet 
http://www.NewtonPhysics.on.ca/index.html 
10. Big Bang Criticisms 
http://www.NewtonPhysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html 
11. Modern Relativity 
<Top> <Space> <Matter> <Time> <Summary> <Case Study> <Bibliography> <Other Links> <Testimonials>
From Galilean
Electrodynamics 
Dear Mr. Seavey,
Many thanks for your letter of 28 August with your subscription to GED and your
manuscript "Time and Space."
I think the conclusion about "Lightspace" is exactly right. Einstein's theory describes the inferences an observer will make from radar data, given that radar propogation at speed c is assumed in processing the data.
I think, however, that the essay getting to 'Lightspace' is a bit long and pedantic. There are unnecessarily many numerical examples, and a lot of detail which may not be essential. People might not read through it all, and therefore might miss the conclusion.
Do you think you can make this essay more succint?
Sincerely,
Dr. Cynthia Kolb Whitney,
Editor,
From Dr. Paul Marmet 
Dear Craig M. Seavey,
Thank you for your email.
As you have seen, I am very uncomfortable with Relativity, Big Bang physics, and QM physics. I was also uncomfortable 40 years ago when I studied physics. I could not understand how so much nonsense could be written, repeated and accepted.
It was about 25 years ago, that I got two
friends who were philosophers. We discussed the problem together during many
hours. One of them was also a professor of philosophy at
When I was young, I thought that these primitive
ideas were gone centuries ago! These absurd ideas are still popular among the
scientists in the 20th century. Modern physics is not compatible with the
existence of a reality independent of the observer! Only
I am happy to read that we seem to share the same opinion. I read your paper, "Time and Space." You are certainly correct when you mention that there are only three dimensions. I was also happy to discover your reference to "The Principia." Congratulations for your web site.
Sincerely,
Paul Marmet,
Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council of
Author, "Classical Mechanics Vs. Einstein's Relativity"
From Dr. Paul Marmet 
To Craig M. Seavey:
A new paper has just been completed which explains why and how the size of matter changes at relativistic velocities. We see how fundamental quantum mechanics solves the problem of relativity. The same explanation also shows how clocks run at a different rate when matter has absorbed kinetic energy.
When the electrons inside atoms increase their masses (due to kinetic energy) the size of the atom (Bohr radius) changes in such a way that the size of matter changes and atomic clocks (and all other clocks) run more slowly as predicted naturally using classical physics and quantum mechanics. This explanation does NOT require any new hypotheses and the results are logical and compatible with ALL experimental observations.
This paper is titled, "Length
Contraction Mechanism Due to Kinetic Energy."
You may find it on the web at: (a href="http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/kinetic/length.html">
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/kinetic/length.html.
You'll find it a fascinating read!
Regards,
Paul Marmet,
Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council of
Author, "Classical Mechanics Vs. Einstein's Relativity"
<Top> <Space> <Matter> <Time> <Summary> <Case Study> <Bibliography> <Other Links> <Testimonials>