Discussion:
"Gravity"
(too old to reply)
Sttaw
2010-12-18 15:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Gravity"

Like almost everyone else, the writer started by assuming that General
Relativity represented good science and that it was his task to understand
that science. Almost immediately it became obvious that a flaw must exist
somewhere in its derivation. Allegedly, General Relativity and Special
Relativity followed The Principle of Equivalence but THEIR CONCLUSIONS WERE
NOT EQUIVALENT! In a Force-Length-Time systems of units, Special Relativity
and General Relativity provided:

Quantity Parallel Velocity General Relativity

Force F 1 1
Length L 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 1
Time T (1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 G*M1*M2/(R*C)^2

One does not need to be a rocket scientist to recognize that these
transformations are NOT ANALOGOUS. Under Special Relativity, the
transformations for length and time are reciprocal. Under General Relativity
such a reciprocal relationship does not exist since the transformations for
length does not exist.

It is the lack of such a reciprocal relationship that made it
impossible for Dr. Einstein to solve the equations of General Relativity in
terms of our familiar three dimensional Euclidean space. After struggling
with the problem for about 18 months, he asserted that space was not three
dimensional Euclidean but was curved into an unobservable fourth spatial
dimension! He did not go back to see where a rather naive mathematical error
was preventing the solution. This crutch allowed the mathematical equations
to be solved since they added the degree of freedom that his error hid. The
idea of "curved space" was accepted because "no one can prove it isn't
curved". This is hardly a responsible justification for accepting a physical
theory!

Since I wished to understand gravitation, I proceeded to derive the
nature of the gravitational field by using two completely different and
independent methods. ("There is more than one way to skin a cat.") Under
both of these derivations, the following transformations were found:

Quantity Parallel Velocity General Relativity

Force F 1 1
Length L 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 1/G*M1*M2/(R*C)^2
Time T (1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 G*M1*M2/(R*C)^2

The result satisfies the Principle of Equivalence since it provides
reciprocal relationship between the transformations for length and time.
These results yield a solution which is consistent with three dimensional
Euclidean space. (Recent cosmological observations have shown that the space
represented by the Universe as a whole is not "curved", it is three
dimensional Euclidean.)

The correct derivation of gravitational theory described is provided in
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm. The test for its validity is whether it
agrees with both the results of observation and the results of theoretical
derivations. The material presented passes this test. It agrees with the
observations which are alleged to have verified General Relativity. The
Sun's gravitational field is about 5 orders of magnitude too weak to reveal
the difference between the two approaches. Observations of strong
gravitational fields, such as around neutron stars, cannot differentiate
between the theories without a close up observations of orbital parameters.
Such a verification must await the availability of Star Trek's Warp Drive.

The advantage of the revised approach is that, among other results, it
reveals the source of gravitational energy (force), allows the total energy
of the Universe to remain constant over time, eliminates the idea of a
singularities (no black holes), and explains the creation of Universes. The
topics covered are:

Summary of "Gravity"

Chapter Titles

1: - Introduction
2: - Laying the Groundwork
3: - Evaluating the Gravitational Conversion Factors
4: - Comparison with the "Real World"
5: - The Complete Gravitational Field

There are 50,000 words and 22 diagrams.


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:- ***@verizon.net. 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.
Usernet User
2010-12-21 01:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18/12/2010 15:51, Sttaw wrote:
This is hardly a responsible justification for accepting a physical
Post by Sttaw
theory!
The justification is that it matches observations within currently
attainable tolerances. What else is there?

UU

Loading...