Other than temporal issues with causality, I have not grasped the contradictions (which I don't think a contradiction, but simply unaccounted for practical reasons). I am loathe to burden you, but humbly request specifics that I might better wrap my head around what I am conceiving that is novel and outrageous, because I consider what I (try to) say as simply a comprehensive conception of the sum of established conventions. I am really not an inventor of original thoughts, but more of a slow, if thorough, considerer of those of my betters, I think.
No problem with the burden, as soon as I will have time I will answer (you may however need to be patient when week-ends approach… :)
To clarify what I mean with contradictions, let’s say that the standard model of cosmology allows for an explanation to a lot of observations (galaxy rotation curves, the cosmic microwave background, gravitational lensing, structure formation, etc.). In order for any new model to be considered seriously, it should be shown (quantitatively) that this new model does (at least) as good as the standard model. I do not see how your proposal could do this (although as I said, I only ask to be convinced quantitatively).
However, the difference between Newton and Einstein is that the universe is completely different in form, despite the math describing orbital mechanics producing quite similar orbits in either, so similar that the simpler math reckoning force of gravity rather than the topology of spacetime is used in rocket science.
This does not mean that one is incorrect and the other one is correct. Both have their own domains of application. Depending on the system we study, we may want to use Newtonian gravity or general relativity.
Because we are confined in spacetime as are all matter and forces, the tree of time conceals the extent of the forest from us in our interpretation of experimental results. I suspect that reconsidering many such in a cosmological context in which spacetime completely extended from the East to the West, and from the Beginning to the End, while it would not alter the mathematical formulae or calculations relevant to the experiment (if such experiment were not differentiating between those conceptions of spacetime), would be quite different in terms of the underlying mechanisms being reckoned, just as Newtonian cosmology required a luminous aether which the Einsteinian cannot abide.
Although I would like to see how that works mathematically, I still don’t see how to future events could impact present and past events (even when including spacetime deformations and so on). Moreover, you actually assume that there is a beginning and an end. That is a strong assumption. Whereas we can define what beginning means (more or less, as this is more complicated than it seems), how would you define the end?
Yes. Spacetime, if there is a beginning to it, is finite. I here note that originally I stated that spacetime was infinite, and you pointed out there was no specific basis for that assumption. Mathematically it is possible in (at least) three ways for infinity to be stated. Something that neither begins nor ends is infinite, and if it ends or begins but not the inverse.
Indeed, here there is a need for some assumptions, that belong to the details of the model. See also the paragraph just above.
However, if there was a big bang in which all the universe was contained in a point at an instant the physical fact of the universe, as distinct from description of concepts of it, constrain that physical entity to forms that reference that origin. A clock can only be the sum of it's parts, while the description of a clock will both embellish and neglect aspects of that discrete reality and can (must) perpetually approach that reality without actually conforming to it.
This is where the model is quite undefined. In the early days, time is actually undefined and general relativity is not a correct description. We need to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics here, and such a description is still missing.
While I used Ohm's Law to demonstrate that concision of formulae is a consilient principle of physics, Ohm's Law also fails to fully encompass physical reality.
It is however sufficient to describe many cases…
I do not seek to disparage math, but to correctly consider it's proper role, which, while essential, is not all that is necessary to encompass physics
I disagree here. A mathematical formulation is what defines a physics theory. Otherwise, we only get bold statements.
When I say spacetime is complete I mean that all events that can be described are fully actualized (they 'have' happened), including those which are at times to come and which are concealed from us by the constraints of time on forces that cannot reach us from those placeras. We cannot perceive them. That does not mean they don't exist, or that gravity from them, not being a force, doesn't affect the full breadth of spacetime. Mass anywhere or anytime in spacetime affects all spacetime, and the statements 'anywhere' and 'anytime' are false in physics, because there is no where without a when, nor a when without a where, and all subject to gravity.
This is hard to grasp. Future events have not happened. They will happen, but they have not yet happened. Even if time is part of spacetime, time is time and means something. I think this is the same issue I don’t fully understand since the very beginning of our conversation. How can the future affect present and past observations?
As a carpenter I use Euclidean geometry daily shaping structures, and, like rocket scientists using Newtonian force calculations to reckon orbits, precisely conforming to actual reality in my calculations would hopelessly complicate my work. Such is the human condition.
Again, this is true. Depending on what you study, this or that formalism is more appropriate. For the dynamics of the universe however, Newtonian mechanics is not enough.