I use a 'flat spacetime' model, that is build from 'inside-> observation' and is based on quaternions.
The ideas are very close to aether ideas, but different.
Actually it's more philosophy than physics. The world is assumned as the behavior of things, that interact with their direct...
If you apply a 'Wick rotation' to the gravitational force you end up at thermodynamics.
That is like multiply with i, or to shift a relation by 90 degree in a spacetime diagram.
Since gravity connects matter over space in a statistical way (because it connects all matter to all matter)...
I think spacetime could be a 'real' foundation to our observations, because intervals are observer invariant. Maybe there is more behind spacetime, but that I don't know.
With the same construct I would put fields into daubt: if there are connections within a continuum, that could build stable...
Actually: curvature of worldlines would be better, since curved spacetime is a misnomer.
Since spacetime consist of events that combine a position and a time based on the state of an observer, the worldline of the observer is straight (by definition). The observer isn't a person, but the zero...
Look at this https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=293626".
What do we call 'mass'? It is related to the behaviour of matter to keep a certain direction of motion (intertia) and to gravity. Matter is, what is more or less stable. No think about a gyroscope. That keeps it's orientation...
In my own model I use something, that you could call a spin-network. But it's build over a smooth spacetime with a very simple model. Since I think, this is possible, I would think LQG is wrong. QM is based on linear algebra, observations and real space. Now think about a kind of space with...
I think, the aether concept is correct, if you take spacetime of GR as this aether. And it has to have three imaginary 'dimensions' and time in encoded into rotation.
The problem is the same as in my own idea (what is influenced by yours btw.), that you can't keep the idea of real particles...
My guess:
LQG is wrong, because spin-networks is a correct idea, but the 'quantisation' into Planck-scale is wrong and superficial.
Superficial because one unexplained phaenomenon is explained over an other unexplained phaenomenon.
Relativity doesn't work with 'nodes' of spacetime, This is...
I distinguish between movement and connection over a static field. A static field connects, but doesn't move. Light passes through space and can't be faster than c in the frame of reference of the sender. In respect to itself it stands still. Now think, that the space we observe isn't 'reality'...