Sttaw

2010-12-18 15:51:20 UTC

"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.

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.