# "General Relativity Examined"

• From: "Wol" <wol@xxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:34:14 -0400

"General Relativity Examined"

In 1915 Dr. Einstein published the General Theory of Relativity. It
accepted the Principle of Relativity (the laws and constants of the Science
of Physics were the same in all reference frames) as a postulate (upon which
Special Relativity was based) and added the Principle of Equivalence. The
Principle of Equivalence asserts that it is not possible to distinguish
between the effects of inertial acceleration and gravitational acceleration.

In a Force-Length-Time system of units, the Special Theory of
Relativity (STR) can be expressed in terms of the Lorentz Transformations
for Force, Length, and Time. (These Transformations plus the fact that
information could not, at least at that time, be transferred faster than the
velocity of light completely explained the effects of velocity in terms
consistent with the idea that an "absolute velocity reference" (i.e.- the
Aether) was not required for evaluating observations (usually ignored is the
fact that the existence of the Aether was not forbidden by STR).

The appropriate Lorentz Transformations for velocity both as provided
by the Lorentz Transformation-Aether Theory and by Special Relativity are
provided below:

Force (F) = 1
Length (L) = 1/(1-[V/C]^2)^0.5
Time (T) = (1-[V/C]^2)^0.5

(All other required transformations can be derived from the above by
applying 19th the Century technique of Dimensional Analysis to known and
well tested physical laws.)

When one examines the above transformations, he finds that the
Principle of Relativity is satisfied because they have the property of
"multiplicative commutivity". This means that one can use the
transformations to go from one reference frame to another to another
successively and obtain the same result as if he went from the first
reference frame directly to the last. This property occurs in the Lorentz
Transformations because the transformation for energy (force-length product)
and the transformation for time are reciprocal to each other and because
they contain a minus sign which allows the transformation to have a zero
value when V=C. The rotation of axes introduced by the mathematical
treatment of STR results from the fact that the Lorentz Transformations are
identical to the expressions of the Pythagorean theorem. There is no
conflict between the Lorentz Transformation Aether Theory and the Special
Theory of Relativity since the former is a special case solution of the
latter.

The writer's first had cause to question the validity of General
Relativity in the early 60's when, in studying the mathematics of GTR, he
came across GTR's transformations equivalent to those of STR:

Force (F) = 1
Length (L) = 1
Time (T) = G*M1*M2/(R*C)^2
Space (S) = G*M1*M2/(R*C)^2

It will be noted that, in order to solve the equations used in deriving GTR,
Dr. Einstein found it necessary that space be "curved" and thus the
transformation represented by that curvature is also provided.

The difficulty with the above transformations is that, without a
transformation for energy that was reciprocal to the transformation for
time, GTR cannot satisfy the Principle of Relativity and, since it doesn't,
it must predict that physical laws change as a function of elevation. Such
an effect should quickly become obvious. Since these laws do not appear to
change, even in strong fields, the writer began to search for a better way
of deriving the nature of the gravitational field and to determine where the
mathematics of GTR went wrong. (The subject is amply covered in
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm [1987] at the Website.)

Examination of the above table also shows that, in addition to
violating the Principle of Relativity, it violates the Principle of
Equivalence because it does not provide transformations that are analogous
to the Lorentz Transformations. The dilation for time is not balanced by a
reciprocal transformation for length and does not contain the minus sign
that would allow the dilation to have a zero or infinite value. With these
transformations, one would obtain the absurd conclusion that a different
result would occur if an elevator going from the first floor to the third
floor happened to stop at the second floor.

It would appear that GTR is flawed. Not only does it violate its basic
postulates, the Principles of Equivalence and of Relativity, it provides the
strange conclusions associated with GTR (e.g. - curved space, black holes,
singularities, wormholes, incompatibility with Quantum Theory, the existence
of a quantum foam at the scale of 10^-34 meters, Superstring Theory, and its
failure to account for the forces effecting interstellar matter ["dark
matter" and the increasing rate of the Universe's expansion].) Most
significantly, it also leads to the conclusion that the alleged "Big Bang"
origin of the Universe resulted not from an observed expansion of the
location of matter but from an expansion of space itself that will continue
indefinitely. Unfortunately the latter conclusion has several weaknesses. It
requires that energy be continuously added to our Universe from some
unexplained source in gross violation of the First and Second Law of
Thermodynamics and it requires that space must have somewhere in which to
expand that is outside of space. Concluding that space itself is expanding
and that the energy implied by this expansion is continuously being supplied
from an external source is one of the most extreme acts of "Faith" in what
can only be described as a "Religion" built around GTR. The concept
certainly does not meet the requirements of a self consistent fact based
Science.

Once the correct time dilation for gravity has been determined though a
simple thought experiments relying on basic, well known, and easily testable
physical laws, it is easily shown that the requirement of multiplicative
commutivity and the Principle of Equivalence is satisfied in terms of
Euclidean Space by the following gravity transformations:

Force (F) = 1
Length (L) = 1/G*M1*M2/(R*C)^2
Time (T) = G*M1*M2/(R*C)^2

It should be noted that the above are derived by applying the Rules of
Dimensional Analysis to accepted and readily verifiable physical laws in
simple "thought experiments" and by a second independent method. Analyzing
Dr. Einstein's Elevator Model rigorously and taking into account the
external work being done on the elevator in order to accelerate it "upwards"
(as model theory requires but was not done) yields the identical
transformations. Including the transformation for length increases the
gravitational mass of photons and neutrinos to twice the gravitational mass
of material particles of the same energy content. The effect of the
gravitational transformations is that light is refracted by a gravitational
field, in terms of three dimensional space, by the amount revealed by
astronomical observation. It is also easily shown that the paths of moving
material objects are also refracted by gravitational fields to the same
degree as are photons and neutrinos. The observations that allege to show
that the gravitational field causes space to be
"curved" actually result from this refraction is terms of "flat" space. (The
false conclusion that, while our overall Universe has been shown
observationally to be "flat", space is "curved" in the presence of local
gravitational fields results from that refraction in locally "flat" space.
If this were not true, a perpetual motion machine of the first kind would be
possible in principle, an obvious absurdity.)

When one apples these transformations to the gravitational field, it is
found that energy in the gravitational field is conserved in the "absolute
sense" because the Principle of Relativity and the reduction in size of the
units of measurement of energy causes a reduction of that "absolute" energy
contained in matter. This reduction in the "absolute" energy of the matter
appears as the energy of fall, and, since the units of measurement for
length are shrinking, space is not expanding but only appears to do so! The
overall universe, as observed from within, must be as has already been
observed, "flat" and it will appear to expand forever, probably at what
appears to be an ever increasing rate.

The observed expansion does not result from an unexplained repulsive
force acting on the matter contained within it but as a result of the
gaseous pressure exerted by the neutrinos and photons existing in space. The
estimates that the writer has seen of the amount of matter in the known
Universe suggest that the observed electromagnetic radiation of 3 Kelvin's
has an energy of at least 10 times the energy represented by the matter in
the Universe and, as such would have a gravitational mass of at least 20
times the mass of the matter contained in the Universe. In addition, since
the nucleon is 1800 times more massive than the electron, the energy
represented by neutrinos COULD be as large as 1800 times the energy
represented by photons. Following this argument, the combined gravitational
mass of photons and neutrinos in the Universe COULD be as large as 36,000
times as large as the trivial gravitational mass of the matter it contains.
Such a Universe would be reasonably described as a balloon of gaseous
photons and neutrinos containing a minute sprinkling of matter "dust".
(These results are shown in "Gravity" copyright 1987.) Also shown is that
the observations that allegedly validated GTR are a natural result of the
transformations in the above table without the need for the artificiality of
"curved space."

It has always puzzled the writer as to why photons and neutrinos are
considered to be "massless" particles. They clearly possess inertial mass as
evidenced by the radiation pressure exhibited by light, and they can be
shown to possess gravitational mass. The fact that they do not possess a
"rest mass" would hardly seem to justify considering them to be massless
since they do not exist unless they are traveling at the velocity of light.
Maintaining correct definitions is important if one's thinking is to be
accurate.

The test of any physical theory is whether it agrees with the results
of mathematical analysis and with all of the relevant observations. The
generation of General Relativity contains a mathematical error that would
not be tolerated if made by a student of freshman calculus. As a result, the
derivation could not be completed without adding the extra degree of freedom
that the artificiality of non-Euclidean geometry provides. General
Relativity agrees with observation only with respect to 1st order effects,
hence its apparent agreement with observation in the extremely weak
gravitational fields in the Solar System. (The observation limit is at least
5 orders of magnitude too coarse to reveal GTR's 2nd order errors and allows
the acceptance of the current absurdities.) When the appropriate corrections
are made, the alleged "Big Bang" origin of the Universe is seen to be a
natural process of gravitational collapse as observed from the interior of
the collapsing object late in its history. Most importantly, General
Relativity contains a zero order error with respect to gravitational force
and energy and as a result it cannot explain the force that holds you to
your chair and the energy that injures you when you fall. (This should be
the prime purpose of any gravitational theory.) A treatment based upon the
gravity transformations consistent with the Principle of Equivalence as
listed above seems to meet all of the requirements.

One might ask how General Relativity could be wrong. The answer is that
its derivation applied the mathematical process of integration and attempted
to use the results of that integration to derive the constants of the terms
to be integrated. If any student of elementary calculus repeatedly attempted
to perform such an operation, he would find himself repeating the course. In
order to overcome the effects of his mathematical mistake, Dr. Einstein
resorted to the fiction that space is "curved" and that gravity results from
that curvature. This, despite the fact that an intelligent man should
immediately recognize that such a curvature cannot produce the force which
hold you to your chair any more than the curve of the Earth's surface can
impel you to move from New York to Chicago. When examining the history of
General Relativity, it is hard to understand how such an error could have
been made unless one or more of the following were true:

1:- Dr. Einstein did not understand the physical significance
of Relativity.

2:- He did not understand the rules of integral calculus.

As a result of failing to solve his difficulty in terms of Euclidean
space because of his error in the use of Tensor Calculus, it would seem
possible that he solved his dilemma by "faking it", either intentionally or
in ignorance, by resorting to the artificiality of non-Euclidean geometry.
He certainly would know that the gravitational fields available in the Solar
System were too weak to reveal the effects of any 2nd order error. (It has
been reported that Dr. Einstein was extremely uneasy at the extension of GTR
to extremely strong fields, and at a conference where GTR was debated, the
conclusion reached was "why shouldn't we consider space to be curved, no one
can prove it isn't". Actually they can and the proof is easy.)

There are at least two lessons here. One lesson is Dr. Einstein's
warning that "one should rely on observation and reasoning and not be swayed
by the unproven opinions of others no matter how numerous or renowned they
may be". (This also applies to Dr. Einstein's conclusions). The second
lesson is that, while mathematics is a very useful tool, but it is only a
tool and has its own limitations. A major limitation is that the probability
of error increases as the number of steps involved become larger and quite
often the existence of such an error is not revealed by the results. Another
limitation is that there are processes that can be described mathematically
but which cannot work in reality unless an additional mechanization not
considered in the mathematics is present. (An example is the calculation of
the output of a vacuum tube using its property of transconductance. The
mathematics shows that applying a negative voltage to the control grid
produces an increase in its positive plate current. The mathematics does not
show that this cannot occur unless there is a bias plate current already
flowing and that the apparent increase in plate current results from a
reduction in the flow of the bias current electrons.)

Mathematics should never be used without the an intelligent
understanding of the mechanisms involved, as was the practice prior to Dr.
Einstein's work. (In the case of GTR, one of the errors was the fact that
the definition of a straight line currently in use is inadequate even for
Euclidean geometry. A straight line is more properly defined as the shortest
distance between two points WHICH REMAINS WITHIN THE GEOMETRY IN QUESTION.
This additional requirement is automatically met in Euclidean Geometry, but,
in the case of non-Euclidean geometry, the shortest distance between two
points does not meet that definition. In the two dimensional non-Euclidean
geometry represented by the Earth's surface, the shortest distance between
New York and Los Angeles is not a great circle as we have been taught, it is
through a tunnel which passes about 200 miles below the Mississippi river.)

For decades, it has been recognized that GTR and the related concept of
"space-time" of STR conflicted with Quantum Theory. Experimental results
indicate that Quantum Theory is valid to an extreme degree of accuracy, but,
for some reason, no one seems to have questioned the validity of GTR. To
resolve the dilemma Superstring Theory has been developed which asserts that
space is actually 10 dimensional and that the excess dimensions were in the
form of loops having a conveniently unobservable diameter of 10^-34 meters.
It must be pointed out that any jackass can solve a problem by adding an
otherwise unnecessary degree(s) of freedom.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). 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.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

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@xxxxxxxx If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
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.

.