Posting #33 - Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?

From: Einsteinhoax (einsteinhoax_at_isp.com)
Date: 03/29/05 

Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:51:53 -0500

Posting #33 - Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?

"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from mediocre
minds." - A. Einstein

     When the writer first started to investigate General Relativity about
four
decades ago, he was quite startled to learn that the results were
incompatible
with the Principle of Equivalence and where therefore incompatible with each
other!. Until that point, the writer uncritically accepted that both
theories
were completely valid, but this difference signaled that something was
wrong. To
clarify, a brief digression would seem to be in order.

     In the late 19th century, the study of Dimensional Analysis was
developed. It
was found that all physical relationships (equations) could be defined in
terms
of three dimensional entities. Any three entities were suitable and no more
than
three were required. The commonly chosen entities were Mass(M), Length(L),
and
Time(T). There were attempts to reduce the required number to two by
substituting accepted physical constants, such as the speed of light, for
one of
the dimensional entities. Careful examination reveals however, that such a
change merely substitutes that constant for the eliminated entity and no
simplification has occurred. (The writer has received a few responses from
individuals who strongly assert that Dimensional Analysis is of no benefit
in
the study of Relativity. It is obvious that they have not done their
homework
and their understanding of the subject is marginal.)

     For simplicity, the writer selected a system of dimensional entities
based upon
Force(F), Length(L), and Time(T). (This choice is just as valid as the
conventional MLT system.) The dimensional entity content of all other
physical
quantities, including mass, can be expressed in terms of force, length, and
time
by using the appropriate expressions from the Science of Physics. (A listing
of
the dimensional entity content of many common physical quantities in the FLT
system is provided in Table 8.2 of
http://members.isp.com/einsteinhoax@isp.com/einsteinhoax/hoax/htm.) The
dimensional entity content of energy, for example, equal to the product of
force
and length (F*L) and for velocity is equal to length divided by time (L/T).
When one examines the Lorentz Transformations of Special Relativity he finds
that the transformations (parallel to velocity) for various physical
quantities
may be determined by inserting the Lorentz Transformations for force,
length,
and time for the dimensional entity content of the quantity involved. Since,
in
terms of force, length, and time, the Lorentz Transformations are, defining
for
velocity effects, $=(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5:

Force(F)= 1
Length(L)= 1/(1-$)
Time(T)= (1-$)

For example, the Lorentz Transformations for energy and for velocity thus
become:

Energy(E)= 1/(1-$)^0.5
Velocity (v)= 1/(1-$)

(It should be noted that the Lorentz Transformation for Velocity tells us
that,
if the velocity of light measured locally is to be invariant (as Special
Relativity requires), then it must differ between velocity reference frames
in
ABSOLUTE terms. This conclusion was clearly understood by the intellectual
giants of the time (Fitzgerald, Larmor, et al) but apparently not by most of
the

     individuals who followed (probably including Dr. Einstein). General
Relativity provides a transformation for time which is analogous to the
Lorentz Transformation for Time (the time dilation) but, unlike Special
Relativity, does not provide an analogous transformation for length. It
asserts that the Gravitational Transformation for length is unity! If we
examine the
equivalent functions provided by General Relativity for gravity effects,
defining # as the gravitational potential between elevations, we find that
General Relativity provides:

Force(F)= 1
Length(L)= 1
Time(T)= (1-#)

And for the examples used above:

Energy= 1
Velocity= 1/(1-#)

     To make up for the lack of a length transformation, General Relativity
assumes
that space is distorted in proportion to the time dilation and also provides
a
space dilation of (1-#) - equivalent to a length transformation of 1/(1-#).
This incorporates the idea that space is "curved" into
a fourth spatial direction in the presence of a gravitational field.
Unfortunately, such a solution is only a partial fix for the conflict
between
Special and General Relativity and cannot explain all of the characteristics
of
the gravitational field nor rigorously define that field.
General Relativity is based upon the premise that the properties of the
gravitational field are identical to the properties of an accelerated
reference
frame as defined by Special Relativity. Comparing the two lists of
transformations, one finds that this cannot be the case. As one changes
reference frames (elevation or Velocity), the results of observations would
differ depending whether one considered the observed force resulted from
spatial
acceleration or from gravitational acceleration. For example, energy as
measured
in the gravitational field would be unchanged while energy as measured
between
moving reference frames would obey the Lorentz Transformation for Energy!
Obviously gravitational and inertial acceleration cannot be considered to be
the
same under General Relativity and, since Special Relativity seems to be
beyond
question, a mistake must have been made in the derivation of General
Relativity.

     When one accepts the heretical possibility that a mathematical mistake
was made
in the derivation of General Relativity it is not hard to find. Embedded in
the
mathematics is an equation containing the second derivatives of length and
of
time which must be integrated to achieve a solution. The second derivative
for
time has a coefficient which allows the effects of time dilation to be
included.
The second derivative for length has no such coefficient! This omission
arbitrarily forces a solution where any gravitational transformation for
length
which results must be equal to unity re3gardless of its proper value. Those
familiar with undergraduate level integral calculus will recognize
immediately
that the integration of the length derivative without the allowance for a
coefficient is a forbidden operation and will normally yield erroneous
results.
The existence of this error forced Dr. Einstein to spend almost 18 months
seeking a means of solving the equations of General Relativity.
Unfortunately,
instead of fixing this basic mathematical error, he took the easy way out by
asserting that space was curved without any evidence of such curvature. In
other
word, he FAKED IT! The justification given by a conference that accepted
General
Relativity was 'why shouldn't we consider space to be curved, no one can
prove
it isn't". Some science!

     When one derives that nature of the gravitational field correctly one
sees that
space is not curved and obtains, for the gravitational transformations:

Force(F)= 1
Length(L)= 1/(1-#)
Time(T)= (1-#)

It will be noted that these transformations are analogous to the ones for
Special Relativity and the Principle of Equivalence really does work since,
for
both theories, the product of the length and time transformations is unity
as is
the force transformation. These transformations provide some surprisingly
rich
results, including the source of gravitational energy, the creation of our
universe and provides insight as to what is external to it! (Try it, you'll
like
it.) Dr. Einstein's blunder in the derivation of General Relativity and the
failure of the academic community to correct that blunder has produced a
great
deal of mischief. This mischief has led to the idea that Quantum Theory and
General Relativity are in conflict (they aren't) and string theory is not
required.

 The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987), "The
Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity
(1999) located at
http://members.isp.com/einsteinhoax@isp.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm.
EVERYTHING
WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE
ACCEPTED
AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT.
THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS
GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

     Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular
basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as they
are
presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please do
not
raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at the
Website. This posting is merely a summary.

     E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com

     The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In
that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who
have
mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed
only
the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was
provided.